Ophiolite

Meanwhile New Horizons moves towards Pluto at almost 15 kms/second and is only just over three Astronomical Units away from the dwarf planet. It is currently about the same distance from the sun as Neptune. http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php The encounter with Pluto and its companion Charon will take place in July next year.

The problems do not appear to be attached. Edit: thank you. I'm not sure I can help, but even if I could I would be reluctant to do so by providing answers. The idea of the Homework Help section is to provide guidance, to help put you on the right track. It is not intended to have someone else do your work for you. So what have you done so far in attempting to answer these? What difficulties are you having?

If you expect to get ill then you may very well do so. Many illnesses have psychosomatic component.

@Nicholas I do not know why I failed to mention this earlier. Life is not fair. You may not like that. I may not like that. But that is the way it is. Is it fair on a gazelle to eaten by a lion? Is it fair on a lion that a gazelle tries to starve a lion to death by running away? So, if you expect things to be fair as you move through life you are in for some serious disappointments. It is worth reflecting on these words: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference. Reinhold Neibuhr

Wow! And top of it all, you have a great CV. I'm impressed and when I've stopped laughing I'll respond to the salient points in my first language. P.S. the negative rep is not from me. Such actions are, in my view, unnecessary here. @John Cuthbert It seems abundantly clear to me that on post #11, where you say "Why are you still even thinking about this" that you are referring specifically to the proposal that Sensei had made for issuing CW generators, or their equivalent. Could you confirm this is the case, thus demonstrating that barfbag misunderstood your comments in his native language, or, correct me, explaining that you meant there was no point in discussing any potential solutions to the ozone problem. In the latter case I shall issue barfbag with an unreserved apology on this point.

The problem is Mike, that you understand science so little that any comments you make about it are fatuous at best. Will you not consider devoting some of your undoubted enthusiasm to learning some science properly? Perhaps you would consider taking an OU course.

What options do you have for studying science at school? As ajb says whatever you are doing, study hard. Make sure you are good at maths, even if it requires a lot of extra work. Also, ask questions on this forum. There are many knowledgeable indivduals who will be happy to help you.

As I said, no one is asking you to go. Feel free to be part of the next demonstration of the effect of natural selection on homo sapiens. We need control samples.

Remind me on which post you offered up a concise abstract of your hypothesis please. My recollection remains that your exposition has been nebulous and disjointed. Consequently any value there may be in your hypothesis is buried beneath a landscape of imprecision. That is offered as encouragement to express yourself with greater clarity, not a criticism to justify rejection of your thesis.

@barfbag: Here is a recommendation. Read what is written more carefully than you do at present and you will save yourself and others a great deal of time. That is a strawman argument. No one on this thread - certainly not John or myself - has argued that we should listen to only one idea. So, why even make this rather obvious point, on which all are in agreement? Well bully for you. Discussion has the potential to be of immense value, but discussion has to be relevant and practical. The ideas proposed are impractical and hence irrelevant. This has been clearly demonstrated. Your inability to understand this is what is responsible for the waste in this discussion. Any undermining of science on this thread is being carried out by yourself. You have an opportunity to learn, yet you prefer to erect strawmen, misinterpret posts and parade your ignorance as if it were a badge of honour. This is counterproductive behaviour. You seem to have a fragile ego. Please stop taking things so personally. Asking the question "why are you still discussing this" when the fruitlessness of the topic has been amply demonstrated, is not unintelligent. I am also at a loss as to how it is impolite to point out an error in thinking. (Clearly you have not read many research papers, or attended scientific conferences.) More to the point I did not accuse you of being rude. So once again you are defending against a position/accusation/assertion that was never made. I suspect, based upon your comments that you have been engaged in very view and run even fewer brainstorming sessions. A key element in any effective brainstorming session is the explicit identification of the session as a brainstorming one and the clear exposition of the rules governing it. This was, consequently, not a brainstorming session. However, even if it was, a key phase in a brainstorming session is to assess the ideas that have been put forward. Criticism is not absent from a brainstorming session, it is merely suspended for the initial phase of idea gathering. Thereafter ideas are subject to criticism. The poster has every opportunity to present new evidence to support their proposal. New evidence was essential since, based on what was presented to that point, the idea had been shown to be unworkable. It is not an acceptable alternative to repeat the original idea and sound the mantra "Well it might work." This is a science forum, not the Disney Channel. Back to the old strawman. As the saying goes, if I valued your opinion I would be offended. Clearly you did not understand what I was saying. I'll take responsibility for that. Here it is again: We are talking about converting the vast majority of the economy towards the sole goal of producing ozone. That means we halt education, stop health care, direct 90% of power to ozone production, curtail the holiday industry, cease mining, etc. It's a frigging dumb idea. That's why John asks, why are we still discussing this.

Hitler had an active imagination. Are you arguing that was good? Or just neutral?

That is fine. There will be more space for the rest of us.

Not really. If you wish to continue to assert that it does please provide peer reviewed citations to justify your claim. No. Really! Next you will be speaking about vortices and energy and the like. I'm sorry, but a phrase like that sounds like hand waving, new age, mumbo jumbo. If you have a serious idea you would be best to avoid such nebulous nonsense. I suspect your theory will be bed ridden for some time. Here we are in agreement.

That is not only humorous, it is near perfect eloquent writing. Pithy, precise and gloriously short. I should love to read a text book by them.

That is a macroscopic, Newtonian law. It does not necessarily apply in the quantum world, at least as I understand it. (Which is marginally at best, even downhill with a following wind.)

My understanding is that science is not yet properly equipped to answer any of the why questions. That is the domain of philosophy. It does appear, as Swansont has note, that sometimes things just happen. That may not seem very satisfactory, but then the universe probably does not exist for our convenience. That said, I think all that Hawking can reasonably say is that our current understanding does not show any need for a creator. In my view that is different from saying there is not one. What I am reasonably sure of is that the creator is not a he, does not have a logn white beard and is not especially favourable to Jehovah's Witnesses.

1. What is the reason given for the ban on tissues? 2. In regard to the correction fluid: a) Stop making mistakes. b) As I noted before, but you seemed to miss, I think the ban may be because of potential substance abuse: i.e. you can get high sniffing the organic solvent used in some correction fluids. And if you sniff to much you can die. Do you think it is fair to students to try to reduce the risk that they might die in school? If this is the reason, why not investigate the availability of water based correction fluids?

My advice remains the same: lighten up.

No. It's because Mods, and even more so the forum experts, are outstanding examples of humanity whose very presence energises a community and whose compassion, wisdom and baking skills are second to none. Sunshine follows them as they walk the Earth and bird burst into song as they pass.

But let's rapidly reject the possibilities that are impractical by several orders of magnitude. To continue investing time and effort in considering them is not just a waste of time and effort it is - metaphorically at least - a criminal, anti-social - waste of time and effort. John has demonstrated effectively and simply that the ideas proposed thus far for replacing the ozone are unworkable. The only sound scientific response to that is to propose a method that is feasible within an order of magnitude or so. Calling people nay-sayers and accusing them of not understanding how brain storming sessions work is not a meaningful response.

Fred, your take on the nature of religion does allow the space to accommodate religion and science in the same mind. Unfortunately, many individuals require that their religion contain some tightly constrained specifications - such as the world was created, literally, in six days - that place it in conflict with religion. This produces a backlash from some of those who are looking at things from a scientific point of view and conflate this narrow approach with the more philosophical stance you are suggesting.

My perception of the law is that it is about effective regulation of society and the interactions of members of that society. In general, I think fairness is incidental. Since you have frequently misunderstood what I am saying, let me clarify. I am not saying that this is a good thing. I am not commenting on whether it is good or bad, I am telling you how I think things are. I may be mistaken, but this is broadly what I think is the case. As to the regulations in force at your school, frankly, if you don't like them, tough. Administering a school, trying to ensure all children receive a good education, seeking to balance many conflicting needs, is a seriously difficult job. Will some decisions be a disadvantage to some pupils? Of course they will. Tough. If you don't like it then you need to look beyond your own personal disadvantage, consider why the rules were implemented and then seek to find an alternative way of dealing with the issue. If you can find an alternative you then have to sell it to the teaching staff. If you can't do that, then you have to accept the rule as it is. As far as the correction fluid is concerned, I would have thought this would be more to do with substance abuse.

The moderator team would step in and take action.

While knowledge might be infinite, there is good evidence that wisdom is in short supply.

I completely agree. I have often given positive rep to counteract an inappropriate negative rep. In such cases the post would not have received a positive rep from me - I simply wish to cancel out a vindictive, or ignorant neg rep. I have benefited from this myself with other members kindly cancelling a thoughtless neg rep. (And thank you to those who did so.)