Ophiolite

It would depend on context and on the character of the delivery. Thus, if it said with a reflective and resigned tone it could mean "Yeah, I can't do maths either. I guess we just aren't smart enough." In such an example the remark would be the equivalent of a comradely hug. If you had just expressed a silly idea, or carried out an inept action, and it was said disparagingly then it was likely a personal attack. What would turn it into a grey area is if you a) were never advised to do maths and b) are measurably of low intelligence. Then the person making the remark could claim they were simply making an objective, descriptive statement.

Popcorn Sutton has made a series of poorly argued posts that seem to be based on his misunderstanding of the topic. My post is a gentle reminder to him that he is not making any sense and the source of his non sense lies in his own mind, i.e. his imagination. It is a play on the imagination/imaginary pairing. (When you have to explain these things, they lose any potency they may have had.)

A figment of your imagination.

Can I vote against electoral magnetic radiation?

I feel physically ill witnessing yet another individual blessed with profound ignorance, coupled with delusions of adequacy. Will this stream of ineptness and unjustified confidence never end? Insulting? Yes, MagInertia, I am insulted by your posts here, on behalf of the scientists who have studied these things, who have devoted their lives to advancing human knowledge, who have spent years acquiring an understanding of our current knowledge before venturing to move it forward a little. Other members have diplomatically pointed out some of your errors and misplaced arrogance. I see no evidence it has had any effect on you. I doubt my more direct approach will either, but I live in hope.

OK. My communication skills have let me down again. I'll give it another try. String theory is a richly textured, profoundly complex, mathematically detailed exploration of the fundamental nature of the universe. The chance use of the word fibre that happens to be a synonym for string does not mean that fibre is synonymous with string theory. Consequently the assertion that mentions of fibres is an introduction to string theory is a wholly inaccurate, naive, ludicrous suggestion. In accordance with the rules of the forum I ask that you either withdraw the assertion or provide substantive evidence to support your contention that the mention of fibres in Castaneda's work is a genuine introduction to string theory. (And this time, please address the totality of my post and not a single adjectival phrase.)

If I use any of these ideas, I'll be sure you get an invitation. I love Spike Milligan's tombstone epitaph. "I told you I was ill."

So build a single mile of one of these walls would require moving tens time the volume of material in the Great Pyramid. And the author envisages several hundred miles. He further estimates the cost at $160 million per mile. I now express personal incredulity (see post #12 for a discussion of the weakness of this approach). However, even if this is accurate, as we appear to need about 1,000 miles, then this is 160 billion dollars minimum! Not wholly unreasonable, but I guess I don't accept the $160 million figure. I need a QS style breakdown of numbers.

Humour is often seen as out of place at funerals. I hope to prepare a video for mine that will be full of humour. (All suggestions welcome.)

Do you actually maintain that the drug fed work by Castaneda is really an introduction to string theory? John McEnroe had the perfect expression for such a situation.

You are a new member and perhaps unfamiliar with the rather direct way most regular members express their views. (We don't take prisoners.) When a member says something is wrong it can seem like an attack: it is, but an attack on the assertion or idea, not an attack on the person. If I am remembering correctly you expressed surprise at the hypothesis. It seemed more than a simple "could this be true" and more like "surely this can't be true, it seems ridiculous". That is what I was responding to. I don't know enough about atmospheric dynamics to comment on where the air masses work. I am reasonably assured from the report that the authors of the study do know and have concluded that 300m walls would work. (They give an excellent practical example from China that seemingly demonstrates this and was what initiated their hypothesis.) Expressing doubt is very welcome and is a good solid, scientific approach. Just be careful not to make it sound like personal incredulity. (I don't understand this, so it must be wrong.) That will get jumped on every time. If I was wishing to question the idea it would have been along the following lines: Interesting proposal, but the following aspects concern me: 1. The economics of constructing these walls. 2. The impact on local ecologies and economies. 3. The possible negative effects on other climatic variables. 4. The unproven nature of the hypothesis - I should need to see a well modeled Monte Carlo assessment before I was halfway convinced. 5. The economics of constructing these walls. 6. See points 1 and 5.

There are definite comprehension difficulties here. I shall assume the difficulties are all mine. In post #7 you say "There is the question of can we build walls that can withstand tornadic winds?". My understanding of English leads me to believe that you think the walls would have to withstand tornado force winds. If you did not think that then there would be know need to build them to that standard. Yet you ask, could they withstand the tornados? That means - that has to mean - you think these walls will be subject to tornado force winds. But the whole point is that if we build the walls there will be no tornados, there will be no tornado force winds, and so the walls will not have to withstand tornado force winds. Yet you thought this would be a problem. That says to me you do not understand that building the walls eliminates the tornados and eliminates the need that they be able to withstand such forces. ......... On the subject of granite walls I was not suggesting that the walls be built of granite. I was pointing out that even a flimsy 18" granite wall could withstand a tornado. A 300m tall wall would, I think have to be substantially wider than 18". And it need not be built of granite. I apologise for not making it obvious I was giving an example of a structure that could readily withstand tornado force winds. By the way, the main thing that destroys property - as I understand it - is not the wind, but the pressure drop. Houses explode, they are not blown away.

I am pleased that what I have said has been of some help to you. I wish you well as you move forward.

Astrobiology threads would fit into the Biology section quite well. I think there are several threads on the topic there already. There are not, as yet, enough threads on the subject to justify a separate sub-forum. Did you have a thread on the subject you were thinking of starting.

This sounds like a homework question. If it is, members will be happy to help you if you show you have made some attempt to answer it. For example, what equation or equations might be relevant to the problem?

Absolutely true. But you seem to making a commonplace error of assuming the psychology of all humans is the same as your psychology. Personnel selection will be crucial to the success of the program. In the trilogy, Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, a character observes that to get selected for the colonisation program you have to prove you are sane; however, anyone who wants to go to Mars under the conditions they will live under is clearly mad. These are huge challenges, but they are challenges that past history suggest can be met with some chance of success. (Not everyone is risk averse. Until the 1980s, when large scale guided expeditions on Everest became the norm, the chances of reaching the summit were about the same as dying on the mountain.) 1. The people who chose to go would not see this as being marooned. 2. You are assuming that over time the size of the living space would not increase. 3. You are overlooking the fascination many would have precisely because it was an alien environment. You are expressing personal incredulity. That is irrelevant. I've seen the capsule. I've touched the capsule. I've done the same to the on display at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston and stuck my head inside one of the Mercury capsule when it was accessible in the '70s. My reaction was "Shoot, I wish I could have been in that.". Yet there were many U2 pilots, none of whom reported any issues. When I had an MRI scan I discovered I was claustrophobic. Guess what: many people are not.

Some will view it positively, some will view it negatively. People are different and react differently. I hope that some may read the discussions here and gain a positive understanding. Listen, lets take a general look at criticism. I speak for myself - I react badly to criticism. That is, when criticised I think, "that's not true" and "that is hurtful". These are natural reactions. But almost immediately I then begin to think objectively. "Is this criticism valid?", "What can I learn form this criticism?", "Do I need to change?", "Did I explain myself badly?", etc. The reactions are past and I am now working with rational, objective actions.

I am telling you that you are welcome here. I don't give a damn what others may think in this regard - I welcome you. However, knowing many of the other members who have posted here through having interacted with them on the forum for many years I can assure you that they likely feel exactly the same. I now risk hurting you again, but that is really silly. You are not hated. You haven't done anything to be hated. Put that ridiculous idea out of your mind. You have raised an issue with Reputation that most of us disagree with, but that has produced some interesting discussion. What is there to hate? Absolutely nothing! You are taking things far too personally. Relax. Enjoy the debate and discussion. In your imagination, perhaps. Not in the real world. You are trying to solve a problem that most of don't think exists. The problem is not the system. The problem is your reaction to the system. You do not need to be hurt by a negative reputation given you by an anonymous person on the internet. It only matters if you decide it matters. Decide now it does not matter. You are in control of your reaction to events. You get to decide if you are going to be pleased, or angry, or hurt, or concerned by events, or posts, or questions. You have the power. Not anyone else.

I am not doing a good job of explaining myself and I apologise for that. Of course you should participate in this forum. It is for everyone who has an interest in science. You are most welcome here. Please continue to post, ask questions, start threads, and make comments. I am suggesting you started this thread because you were hurt by receiving a negative reputation mark. I am trying to explain to you that that is not important. That you seem to be very worried about it and you should not be. Part of maturing is learning to put things like that, which hurt at the time, behind you - move on to more positive things in the future.

Nicholas, are you familiar with the expression "Let's cut to the chase."? It means, let's get to the main issue, let's deal with what is at the heart of the matter, let's discard all the peripheral stuff and discuss what is important. I think it is this - please correct me if I am wrong. You are fifteen years old. You are human. Humans are sensitive beings. Fifteen year old human beings, adolescents in an adult world, are especially sensitive. You received one more negative reputation points and it hurt you. It still hurts you. Am I correct? If I am, then consider this: 1) You will experience orders of magnitude more hurt than that in the future. 2) Life is filled with hurt. 3) Growing up is about learning how to deal with that hurt positively. 4) Isn't it time to move on?

@physica: Perfection. Thank you.

You seem to be immune to facts. I repeat, your problem is internal, not external. It is not a consequence of reality, but your reaction to reality. The answer I give here will be rejected by you, even although it is valid. 1. There is no limit on the number books that can be written. The number of integer numbers i infinite. Therefore any book that contains an integer number can be unique and there can be an infinite number of them. 2. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ensures that the total number of ways of rearranging material cannot be defined and is therefore not finite. Do you feel any better?

Between the way you spell Phil and he and I spell Phi, there is one 'ell of a difference.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You ask if these walls will be able to withstand the forces of a tornado. They don't have to. If the hypothesis is correct the presence of the walls will prevent the formation of a tornado, so they will never have to withstand the force. One of the issues of in terms of strength of structures in tornado country is that it is abysmal low. Timber framed houses can almost be pushed down by a body builder. (I'm quite confident I might loose the roof of my own home were it hit by a full blown tornado, but I'd like to see it demolish eighteen inch thick granite walls.) At this point we need to return to one of my original points. I have not done the calculations, but a back-of the-cerebrum estimate suggests to me that it would far exceed the capacity of the US economy to implement this century. The idea, then, remains an interesting observation lacking any practical application.

The history of this issue is interesting. In the early 19th century, as geology emerged as a distinct science, major battles were fought over the underlying principles. The Neptunists and Plutonists argued over whether crystalline rocks such as granite were deposited from ocean waters, or formed by cooling of magma. The Catastrophists and Uniformitarians debated whether distinct and different events in the past, such as Noah's Flood, had generated the landscape, or if this was down to the slow, persistent application of the forces we see at work today. Ultimately the Plutonists and Uniformitarians won the day. In the latter case this produced, in some cases victory for dogmatism over pragmatism. Researchers were blind to some evidence because it would have required invoking an apparently Catastrophist view. Your example of the Missoula floods and the general resistance of the geological community to their reality is one. The failure to recognise that extinction events a) existed, or b) might be due to a singular event rather than slow trends, until the Alvarez father and son team came along, is another. So it may be, as I think you imply, that we have failed to see evidence for excessive erosion in the past, because we have failed to look for it. On the other hand, fickle fashion, has decreed that looking for elements of catastrophe is a good way to make a name for yourself, so I continue to suspect that the absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.