Ophiolite

I thought my question was clear: why are you obsessed with living for ever? So obsessed that you propose ludicrous methods to achieve immortality. If you wish to approach a solution to your obsession you would be best to study some real science instead of indulging in flights of fantasy.

While the notion of living forever undoubtedly has its attractions, can you explain your obsession with the idea?

All well known and understood. However, you stated that GPS satellites carry out these tasks. This is incorrect. You may appreciate that on a science forum, members tend to look favourably on those who present their facts accurately, but have a heightened skepticism for those who are sloppy in presenting details (or writing in big letters). Will you now address the crucial point made by swansont: "ELF is electromagnetic, while the resonance mentioned is acoustic. You can't equate the two."

I am curious HAARPsic, do you feel posting in really large letters makes your speculation more plausible? If so, why? If not, why do you use the large letters? I realise the questions may seem of little relevance to your central thesis, however, there is a connection. You appear to be a conspiracy theorist and as such will pay no attention to any refutations and repudiations that may be presented to you. And conspiracy theorists often employ large letters. I'm sure there is a sound psychological explanation for it. Anyway, as a throw-away line, I just wanted to say your chosen forum name resonated with me. You might say it struck a chord. I guess that would make it a HAARPsichord.

John, the geostationary satellites are a red-herring. They drift off position naturally and have thrusters to keep them more or less on station.

This doesn't work if an elephant stands on your head. It's why I try to avoid elephants.

If you wish to become a multimillionaire you should stay with Business Studies. The fact that you don't like it has nothing to do with making money. If you study hard, work in a dedicated and focused manner applying what you have learned and bringing your own original ideas into play, while setting fun to one side you are almost assured of success. I am unable to comment on your state of happiness. However, if you choose a subject you like, then you will do well at it almost naturally: the effort will seem more like fun than an effort. Even if you don't make much money at it you will be doing something you enjoy.

I quite agree. However, when I was experimenting with this in my youth I did not set the alarm. (I only use one today if it is vital I be up at a certain time for a flight, or meeting.) An example of what you are speaking of is that, when living in Cairo, I would wake every morning a couple of seconds before the muzzein's call to prayer. This was caused by the crackle as he turned on the PA system and was not evidence of deep seated religious convictions on my part.

I'm sorry ADVANCE, but I really don't think you have any right to say that!

Hi Mike, there are several responses I could make to this. I have difficulty choosing, so I shall let you select the option that appeals the most. 1. The OP asked a straightforward question, for which there is a well established answer that is consistent with a range of current theory: psychological, physiological and physical. Why do you feel the need to intervene with with poorly defined speculations that will confuse rather than elucidate? 2. The use of capitalised letters to emphasise words is often associated with cranks. Would you stop it please. It detracts from your argument. 3. The width of now, by which I take it you mean duration, would likely be Planck Time. This is reasonably well established within physics. I would argue that you have no business postulating ideas about time it you are unaware of this - and if you are aware of it, why would you ask the question? As to where now is, it is relative, if I grasp at least some of Professor Einstein's ideas. I think this is also generally known, so why are you asking? 4. You are trying to defend the indefensible. In the mainstream forums speculation is not only discouraged, it is practically forbidden. It is rude to introduce your own hypotheses in these sections: it is likely to confuse neophytes and casual readers. Yet you continue to do so. Where does that arrogance come from? 5. Mike, I really like you and would love to visit you to have a beer and a chat one day, but you don't half talk some shit.

Are you actually going to read anything you have been advised to read?

Well, you are perfectly free to disregard the experiences of your friends and of myself. It is anecdotal evidence and thus highly suspect. All I can tell you is that I used this technique many times over the years and subjected it to some reasonable testing early on. I was sufficiently satisfied to conclude that our internal time clock is pretty accurate and can be "set" to wake us at a specific time. If I were reading this I should want some independent, peer reviewed research before I accepted it. However, I have the choice of accepting some weird, new-age, hand waving, hocus-pocus as an explanation, or I can accept that our internal clocks are pretty damned accurate. Guess which one I opt for!

As far as waking up ahead of the alarm clock is concerned, this is perfectly explicable by the use of our internal clock. If I wish to waken at a specific time I simply imagine that time before going to sleep and then wake up as required, marginally before the alarm. There is nothing surprising in that Mike.

Please produce a citation from a peer reviewed document, or standard textbook where it clearly states that massless particles do not travel at c in a vacuum.

Of course, immediately recognising and acknowledging your error, or oversight is the mature and sensible thing to do. The shame is on ADVANCE for not following a similar standard.

Please provide a citation to support this statement. (I will give you a helping hand. You will find no such citation because the statement is wrong. ) You are proposing that the principle of conservation of angular momentum is wrong. We have centuries of experiment and observation showing that it is right. All you have in response is that you think generations of scientists are mistaken. You are confused about changes in the length of the day. The length of daylight hours vary with the seasons because, as noted by Bignose, of axial tilt and consequent orientation of the hemispheres with respect to the sun.

Sure. And life is like a box of chocolates. But this is a science forum, not a place to expostulate remarks that only carry any weight when read under the influence of questionable substances. I ask a serious question: what is motivating you to post the questions and remarks that you do? From my perspective it looks bizarre and self defeating, so I must be missing something.

Trying to save the world is a noble objective. Ten out of ten for wishing to do so. However, you should keep these points in mind. 1. Your idea will not work. 2. Your idea is not really a proper idea, but just a very loose suggestion that is as useful as a mountain goat's flatulence. 3. You need to accept these points before you can move forward. 4. Making negative remarks about the sexual orientation of other members is not only irrelevant, against the rules of the forum and rude: it is a really dumb thing to do as it will turn people against you and distract from your central objective. 5. This could be an excellent time to start the difficult process of growing up. Members will be supportive if you attempt to do so, but your behaviour on the forum so far has been immature and foolish. Please change.

ADVANCE, they have not done this yet because the technological challenges are enormous, involving major developments in a host of engineering fields, following the development of detailed theories on how to do it. Your question is equivalent to someone asking in 1532 A.D., "why have they not built a really large rocket and put an airtight room atop it and sent people in it to the moon?" Do you think they could have done this in 1532? Do you see why we have not done what you ask about in 2014?

ADVANCE, I thoroughly applaud you for your imagination and for your enthusiasm. Both are the life blood of scientific and technological advance. If more young people had these positive attributes we could go on to solve more problems more rapidly. I sense you are feeling somewhat frustrated by the posters replying to you who don't quite get what you are proposing. They keep going on about thermodynamics and evaporation in a vacuum and memory storage requirements and totally missing the main thrust of your idea. Am I right? Unfortunately the points they raise are valid ones and wishing it were not so will not make it not so. You think, it seems, that assembly can be readily accomplished with "quadrillions of photon shooters". Perhaps this is true, but you have completely, totally, utterly, comprehensively failed to address any part of how you would construct a "quadrillion photon shooters", or how you control them. You appear to think this is a minor issue, yet this lies at the heart of the matter. You are proposing something akin to someone in 1890 saying "All we have to do is make a thing with wings and make it go fast and we shall be able to fly." That is not science; that is storytelling. It may be very interesting story telling, but it has little or no technical value. Those members who have responded to you know enough physics to see that you have proposed very little and what you have proposed won't work. This should not discourage you, but instead use this as a platform from which to advance your knowledge. Don't do the reverse and try to defend what is, currently, a rather weak proposal. Ask questions: don't insist on your version of reality. Good luck.

Herndon has been publishing stuff on this for years. He is in a sub-set of one. He may be right, but his idea has failed to gain any traction among geophysicists. He's equivalent to the 0.5% of scientists who deny AGW, except his view is not dangerous.

Uranium is a lithophile element: it is chemically inclined to enter into rock forming minerals. There is practically no uranium in the core. Moreover, its preference for minerals common in the crust, along with the cyclic nature of vulcanicity and plate tectonics means that it has become concentrated in the crust and depleted in the mantle. (At least the upper mantle.) Most of the radioactive heating of the mantle arises from decay of potassium isotopes that are relatively common in the mantle.

The paper is available, but only by purchase here. However the same link provides the abstract of the paper and a PowerPoint presentation narrated by Leone. I am skeptical, with my skepticism founded on the distance the lava flows would have to travel. I should like to see some calculations justifying the compositions and resultant viscosities and temperatures necessary for transport that distance to occur.

Just a couple of technical points. The entire solar system will not be burned to a crisp. Early calculation thought that in the red giant phase the sun would expand to engulf the Earth, but it would leave the giant planets relatively unaffected. It is now thought that the Earth, although now bereft of life, would survive.

If I am working from home I will sometimes don full business suit as a means of getting mentally into the appropriate frame of mind to maximise my productivity. I think this works for me because of the association between business attire and head down work and professionalism. I have no idea if it would work for others. Moreover, I would only use it for certain kinds of work. For other types I might not even get out of bed.