Ophiolite

When I was growing up the following was true for me: We had an outside toilet. I never sat in a car until I was nine years old. My mother had one of the first electric washing machines in our town. Television was a tiny screen in low definition black and white, with one channel. The small number of people who crossed the Atlantic did so primarily by boat. There were probably no more than a score of computers in the UK, all with less processing power than your phone. MRI scans had not even been dreamed of. Space probes had not yet visited comets, asteroids, Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Mercury or the Moon. Why? No space probes. And yet you think none of what we have around us is amazing.........I'm amazed.

Prior to the development of plate tectonic theory, orogenesis - mountain building - was attributed variously to Earth contraction, Earth expansion, undation and likely a few more besides. Most remained in vogue in some quarters until the end of the 1960s, by which time the evidence and theoretical underpinning for plate tectonics was solid.

Who is to blame? Arguably Sir Arthur James Balfour.

Who said this would make humans, chimps and gorillas equal? No one. What does equal even mean? If you mean identical, that would be wrong, since they are not identical either in appearance, behaviour, or genome. They are, however, very similar - in appearance, behaviour and genome. The difference is explained by Darwin's concept of Natural Selection and the development of that concept in a century and a half of sound observation.

No, I mean that, as far as we can tell the universe looks much the same regardless of where you are in it. If you were on a planet 5 billion light years away everything you see would be, in a general way, just what we see from the Earth.

Well, if you take outdated concepts, falsified theories, pop psychology terminology and place them in a blender that produces obscure metaphor, then I daresay one can think one has produced a model of human behaviour on a chessboard. I favour rigorous science, current thinking, robust questioning and a nice mix of precision and concision. But that's probably just my gay bishop feeling his oats.

Come now! Anyone who still has a President has a great sense or irony, if not of humour.

Relative, can you tell me why, when you have had it explained to you multiple times, that the definition of a second is not based on distance do you continue to insist that it is? I can think of several explanations for this behaviour, none of them flattering. I hope you can come up with one that does you credit and moves this discussion forward, instead of in an inwardly spiraling orbit to death an destruction.

Alias Moniker, your question, when translated, comes out like this: "I know it's called the theory of relativity, but surely there must be an absolute."

Leibniz had big shoulders, then?

Even in SF I think this definition would typically be incorrect. Teleportation is normally seen as "beaming" the information to the destination, where the teleported object is reassembled, based on the information content of the "beam". This beam is a stream of photons, or tachyons, or some undefined particle, but there is a transport across space, not the instantaneous placement in the remote location.

I would be interested, in a new thread, to hear your argument for it being possible to have too much humour. Well developed humour is one of the more important features that distinguish homo sapiens form the rest of the animal kingdom. (I say this in the hope that three members will immediately post references to peer reviewed research illustrating the existence of humour in animals. Certainly chimps have it.) Only by not taking ourselves - and aliens we meet - seriously, can we fully appreciate how serious the matter is. I have no expectations. They are aliens. By definition they will be different. That doesn't stop me having hope. If they have a sense of humour I think we have a better chance of understanding and cooperating than if they don't have a sense of humour.

Same type, age, evolution and distribution of stars. Nothing unique to the neighbourhood.

overtones's argument appears to boil down to this: 1. Humans adapted to specific Eurasian environments. (Or Eurasian/African) 2. When they emigrated to North America they found similar environments. 3. Their adaptations worked well in these environments. 4. But these were not the environments they had adapted to. 5. Therefore humans are not adapted to the environments of North America. So, all overtone has to do is demonstrate that the definition of an environment must include its geographic location as well as details of climate, weather, topography, flora and fauna. Failure to do so should lead to closure of what is becoming a tiresome thread.

I do not think I am unique in already viewing it as sinful. The complacent attitudes of some in the fundamentalist camp would be criminal were it not for the plausible excuse that they are not intelligent enough to know any better.

I would add to that: how a human is physically constructed makes most sense when viewed from an evolutionary perspective. We don't best appreciate the Mon Lisa by destructive testing of paint pigments.

Ron, your observations are interesting, but I find nothing that moves me to discuss - and this is a discussion forum. Your post has more of the texture of a blog. Can you offer a further thought that might promote discussion rather than passive agreement?

Unfortunately, Relative, this is pure arrogance. You say you have learned current science, yet are so ignorant of the basics of reflection and ambient light levels that you foolishly think glass reflects better at night. To challenge how science currently thinks about things you need to have an intimate knowledge of what that thinking is. You do not have this. Do you have an honours degree in science?. A Ph.D. in science? A lengthy history of research, with significant research publications? No? Then you really have no right to suggest that "science has it wrong". I lack all but the first of these and would never countenance arguing that the experts are wrong. I am all too aware of my own ignorance. To be otherwise is to be arrogant.

Please provide a citation that demonstrates that this happens to potassium to a greater extent than it does to other elements. i.e. show research that indicates that, regardless of the mechanism, substantially more potassium is retained terrestrially, than is the case for other common elements. Please explain how this has grown over time, rather than reaching a steady state condition very quickly, in geological terms. Sodium deposits? Do you understand what the Mars craft are measuring? And why was the potassium on land not carried to the ocean, upon the death of land life? So, your earlier assertion that perhaps potassium and silicon fought for control of the cells was a statement with no real meaning? Silicon does not perform any of the functions performed by silicon. 98% of most the elements, apart from oxygen and hydrogen is within cells. No. Just as carbon forms the backbone of the molecules of carbon based life, because of its ability to produce complex polymers, silicon would perform this function in silicon based life. Control functions would reside with the atoms attached to the silicon backbone. I really think your speculations would benefit from a better grounding in chemistry, biology and geology.

But the same native could have a hell of a time renting a car at the airport, driving to his hotel and setting his alarm for a 7:20 breakfast appointment. Life skills are environment dependent. Which is why, tomgwyther, you are writing for the US, I guess, not even the Western world in general.

If you have something, then you need to express it without talking about viscosity. Viscosity has a very precise, well documented, established and understood meaning in science. You cannot go around changing it randomly. You need to find another word or phrase to convey the sense you intend. You might also wish to consider how bored some long term members can become faced with yet another person who has a deep insight into Nature, yet is a self confessed ignoramus in terms of basic scientific theory and methodology. I ask you, out of curiosity, what I have asked others before. What gives you the arrogance to challenge a subject of which you are so woefully ignorant? I strive to understand the mindset that leads to such irrational behaviour. Can you help me?

Very well. Define viscosity. Mathematically. You say you have altered the definition only very slightly, so that should require only the smallest alteration in the equation. If you cannot do this, if you wish to argue that an equation does not apply, then you are not talking about viscosity. Let's get that potential misunderstanding dealt with promptly.

I was employing humour. There is a long tradition, at least in British comedy, to make jokes about ones wife. "I take my wife everywhere. Unfortunately she always find her way back." "My wife and I enjoyed twenty five years ......and then we met." "Some people are very poor cooks. Take my wife. No, seriously, take my wife." I predict that, if and when we meet ET, the success of our communications and relationships will depend upon whether or not ET also has a sense of humour. (There is an excellent short story that uses that theme to explore the risks inherent in First Contact. Anyone recall it?)

Clearly you don't hold with the idea of accepting definitions that have evolved over time and are used by the vast majority of educated persons. On that basis, as your definitions are not shared by the population at large, or any significant segment of it, (and are not normal) that would make them supernatural.

No. The highest concentrations of potassium are controlled by the mineral distribution which is controlled by global tectonics and magmatic evolution and subsequent weathering and transportation processes. So does the Earth. Silicon is a major component of all terrestrial planets. Most rocks are composed primarily of silicate minerals. The mantle and crust of terrestrial planets are essentially silicates. In what way do you think potassium "controls cells"? In what way do you think silicon could perform a comparable function?