Ophiolite

On balance, I'd rather you not. Not touchy, unless you mean touchy-feely. i.e. governed by emotions, not rational thought; based on expectation, not observation; self-indulgent, rather than self-critical. In summary, I think posting your proposition in Philosophy would be in danger of giving philosophy a bad name, if anyone were to entertain it seriously. No. What you have is most definitely not a theory. It doesn't even rate as a hypothesis. I question whether it has enough meat to merit being called a speculation. An idle, ill-conceived, unsubstantiated thought would be the fairest description. Unflattering, true. Disrespectful? No. Disrespectful would be pretending you had something of value. Equally, it does not mean it is true. And you have provided many reasons to suspect it is not. (Itemised by several other posters.) By the way I am not a moderator. I am, however, a forum Expert. My two areas of expertise are Earth Science and Bullshit. It was interest in the latter that led me to this thread.

It is. Thank you. As Les Dawson used to say "I appreciate your support. I wear it every day."

It was a joke. Apparently not a very obvious, or very good one, but a joke nonetheless. Perhaps I should have said "Doesn't that depend more on your frame of mind than your frame of reference".

You think it is significant that since the middle of last summer, with us not yet into this year's summer, we have not had a heat wave? And there are more deaths from strokes than from heat. What's your point. Moreover we are talking about an increase in the future of deaths due to heat. But this, for some strange reason, does not concern you. And all old people make wise decisions in their retirement? And you ignore the ignore the figure for thousands of deaths in Europe due to the last major heat wave. And you ignore that it is temperatures like that which are predicted for the UK. And you just go on ignoring fact after fact and repeating the same inane drivel. Because old people who are on pensions of questionable and diminishing value will have lots of excess cash to by the aircon units and pay for the costs! Talking bollocks is not the normal English way: 1. People do die in heat waves in the UK. 2. If the temperature rises then considerably more of them will die - and taking off their jumpers or trying to afford an aircon will not provide the answer. I believe if you check the posts you will sea that someone - I don't think it was you - said the idea of a 200m higher sea level in the past was wrong. Evidence was produced to show that they were mistaken. Because a 60m rise is possible and 200m higher levels existed in the past and I don't recall anyone making a claim that these were going to happen, whereas you just post nonsense. Tiresome nonsense. Edit: I see I have cross posted similar responses to swansont. At least this should end the speculation that we are each other's sock puppet.

Doesn't that depend on your frame of reference?

It seems plausible. What do you find unlikely about it? Have you actually read the article? Nowhere do they speak about building "walls around us". Three east-west walls are built across the mid-west. In what way is that "around us"? So, you haven't read the article. The walls stop the development of such winds before they have such powers. Everything of significance? So did plate tectonics, space travel and a successful English football team. (So, two out of three.) And that, apart form the economics, is the key question. Still, I see an opportunity for a couple doctorate theses.

No. Do you feel any better?

The main point seems to have been adequately dealt with, so let's add an aside. The majority of professional scientists couldn't give a damn about relativity since it does not impinge upon their specialty. Biochemists, palaeontologists, microbiologists, ethologists, zoologists, geologists, et cetera, et cetra. Not an application of relativity in sight and total indifference on a professional level.

Do you find any evidence in sedimentary record to support these speculations? I am unaware of any, but then I haven't looked too closely. Those who have looked closely have not, to my knowledge, raised queries about appropriate peculiarities in the rock record. For that reason I strongly suspect your speculation, while interesting, is groundless. (Of course you could argue that groundless, or less ground, is exactly what you would expect with extensive erosion. )

Yes you did. But one of the wonders of our universe is that I have the freedom to ignore your request, just as you have the freedom to ignore my excellent advice. The only remaining question is then, which of us is more ignorant? Your obsession with this concern is abnormal and unhealthy. It is quite possible that appropriate treatment by qualified professionals could address your issues and allow you to be happy. (As an aside, why are you so concerned about being happy? Would you not rather be satisfied than happy, for example?) Humanity will certainly go extinct, but that is most likely by evolving into one or more new species. I trust you would not find that upsetting. The universe may be infinite - this is unclear. If it is infinite then your worries are groundless. Why is the finite limit on possibilities unacceptable to you? That is completely illogical and simply wrong. Consider a matrix with four elements. The universe could be finite, or infinite. Everything could be predetermined, or not. Having a finite universe does not impose predetermination, nor does an infinite universe ensure freedom. The root cause of your depression is not present in the external universe, but in your internal constitution. I wish you good fortune in fixing that, but it is unlikely to occur as long as you maintain this ....affectation.

This is my first reply to you and I warn you it is going to be direct. I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. I can find despair and hopelessness in even the most positive of situations. If I had just won an Olympic gold medal for the 800m in track and field, think how depressed I would feel knowing I had not won the 100m, 200m and 400m sprints, and that I had no chance of even gaining a podium finish in the Three Day Eventing, or the coxless fours. Oh, the dread!. And if I have a family with a wonderful wife and three amazing children, think of all the great women I have been unable to marry, and the scores, hundreds, millions of delightful sons and daughters I have not had. So sad, so depressing. And if I can only manage to write a dozen best selling books, three of which win the Nobel prize for literature, how utterly pointless that would be, since there are millions of books I have not written and will never write. Endless misery. Well, that point of view is just dumb. Wake up. Embrace the wonder of what we have. Write that first book. Experience the joy of creation. Go to it and stop lounging around in self pity.

Many research papers are available in their entirety online. I recommend the following sources: Pub.Med As the home pages notes, PubMed comprises more than 23 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites. Google Scholar Searches for specific topics will throw up hundreds, or thousands of hits, depending on the precision of the query. Many of these will give access to the full paper, while most of the rest will provide at least the abstract. PNAS The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences contains many papers on the biological sciences. The full papers are available after a year or eighteen months, while selected papers are available in full immediately.

I found your exposition difficult to follow (some sentences were difficult to parse). Did you demonstrate clearly how this would be done correctly. My impression is that your argument was along the lines of we will do A and B will naturally happen and so we shall reach C. That is both illogical and unconvincing.

The OP would benefit from: a) An abstract. b) Rigorous editing to remove surplus words. c) More effective use of paragraphs. With that done, several members would likely make the effort to read it.

The Law is an ass. Charles Dickens

@DARRYELREDMON I'm with you 100% on the interest in and enthusiasm for knowledge about the world and the way it works. I'm with you 100% on the notion that some of what we know today may turn out to be faulty. I'm therefore really disappointed that you appear unwilling to grasp a great opportunity to learn something. It has been explained to you - I think with great clarity - why your idea of a rigid rod moving instantaneously is wrong. Yet you choose to ignore this. You are choosing ignorance over knowledge. Is that a wise choice? Please reflect on what you have been told and ask questions if necessary, but abandon your foolish and incorrect idea now. (And, as others have asked, please stop with the giant capital letters. It is embarrassing.)

Mordred's second link in post #13 is way too technical for the level of question posed and manages to obscure the strong consensus view on the formation of gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn. This is that following formation of planetesimals in the protoplanetary disc cores of approximately ten Earth masses are formed. This triggers a runaway growth, attracting large masses of gas from the disc creating a gas giant. Further corrections on earlier posts: 1.There are arguably no comets in the asteroid belt - though as Airbursh points out there are so many comets that the odd stray might wind up in the belt. They are common in the Kuiper Belt and make up the hypothetical Oort cloud. 2. Pluto is not a captured asteroid and was never thought to be.

Sensei, you appear to have an incorrect idea of what computer science is. While it does include programming in its remit, it is much broader than that. Wikipedia says the following: Computer science is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. It is the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodical procedures (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, and access to information, whether such information is encoded as bits in a computer memory or transcribed in genes and protein structures in a biological cell. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems. You have given what may be good advice for someone who wishes to be a programmer, but which is largely irrelevant for one who wishes to be a computer scientist. @the legendary2: do you wish to be a computer scientist, or a programmer? I hope you can see it makes a vast difference.

To me it seems it largely the absence of any evidence to suggest that the environment does favour particular mutations. If this id occur one would expect to see some evidence for it. This seems to be lacking.

I don't think we should overlook the immense pleasure to be gained from being disappointed and grumpy.

I am lazy, so study in excess of thirty minutes I found to be tiresome and therefore rarely indulged in it. The way around this, for me, included the following: 1. Grasp the key, headline concepts and fixing these firmly in my mind by relating any subsequent facts to these concepts. 2. Learn how to extract the guts of a research paper in a few minutes by: a) thoroughly read the abstract and conclusions several times b) think carefully about the implications of the papers argument c) speed read the papers to pick out points that illustrate a) and b). 3. Read a textbook for thirty minutes before going to sleep every night. Retention is at the maximum at this point. 4. Ensure you find whatever you are reading about fascinating and intriguing. This will ensure you continue absorbing it long after the twenty minute boredom level has set in, since you are not studying but enjoying yourself. 5. Read around the topic as much as possible. 6. Find opportunities to explain stuff to colleagues. 7. Take extensive notes in lectures in your own words. This forces you to accurately summarise and highlight. It is not even necessary to ever read the notes - the act of conceiving them and writing them is what provides the memory.

I suspect the greater part of the issues with insults, real or imagined, stems from the following types: 1. Anti-social persons who are offensive by their nature. (Probably a small minority of the offenders.) 2. People who are over sensitive, or insecure and see attacks in the mildest of comments. 3. Persons who employ subtle language use to probe at sensitive areas without overtly being insulting, probably because they get some twisted pleasure from it. I invite the reader to identify the examples of behaviour 3 in my post.

Mike - let me be blunt. Lee Smolin is entitled to make audacious remarks about science; you and I are not. Our ignorance disbars us.

arc, I really wish you could attend one of my technical writing seminars. You might learn how to right a proper abstract. Thank you for providing the material, but seriously, would you like to write a summary?

Current data suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that the possibility of a Big Crunch is therefore non-existent.