Ophiolite

Physics and chemistry. What do you find unsatisfactory about that answer? (I am pretty sure you do find it unsatisfactory, else we would not be having this discussion.) It is, at times, frustrating that we do not yet know the details of exactly how this occured. But it is also inspiring and exciting that through diligent application of the scientific method we shall eventually know. You give the impression that our current state of ignorance of the detail is a failing of science. Perhaps you would clarify your thinking on these points, since some of the antagonism you are experiencing may arise from these impressions (that may be faulty).

Are you simply talking about defocusing the eyes, or something else? If defocusing I would have thought anyone could do that, but as noted earlier, there is no incentive to try.

As a bona fide, tree hugging, left wing, liberal leaning, green socialist let me say that you are both indulging in a knee jerk reaction that does neither you nor your argument any credit. Let us take a single point from those you have objected to. So, you do not want to help bright children overcome the fact that they might live in squalor, or that their parents have no interest in education, that their peers openly laugh at those who are knowledgeable, that they attend schools with insufficient funding and a demoralised staff? Apparently so, for you attack Boris for making the suggestion that such children should be helped to overcome those difficulties of their background. For the record, I think Boris's public responsibilities should be limited to quarterly appearances on Have I Got News For You.

Well, they might do that, but I tend to doubt it. My understanding, possibly outdated, is that many/most/all viruses arose by subtraction from more complex "things", rather than being a stepping stone to more complex "things". Please note that the majority of members here are agreeing with you that the definition of life is vague. This is because, as CharonY and others have noted, biology is complex; organisms are comple; simple words - inappropriately applied - can confuse rather than clarify. Earlier you asked if there might be some force that was responsible for the difference between liviing and non-living entities. This is a valid question, but one that was answered over a century ago. Vitalism, is a now discredited concept - discredited since there is no significant evidence in favour of it. Do you continue to suspect that it may exist? That there is some elan vital at work? If so, why do you think this and what would it take to dissaude you?

Thank you. My apologies for misinterpreting your previous post. Please do not see this as a defeat. I should prefer to see it as a small victory for both of us and for science, since we have arrived at an improved understanding. It can be difficult to admit error and I congratulate you on your readiness to do so.

I am trying to get a proper response from you. Do you consider your previous post to be a proper response? Please take a look at the forum rules. You made an assertion, You are required to back it up with evidence. I do understand that you would like some time to do some further study in order to provide a more detailed response. I welcome that, but if you felt confident enough to make the assertion, accompanied by numbers, I do not believe anything I have asked for is unreasonable. I would have accepted a response such as "Hmm, I may have made an unwarranted assumption here. Let me explore this a little further and get back to you." Indeed, I would have welcomed such a response. What continues to puzzle me is your unwillingness to offer any comment at all apart from this latest sarcastic retort. This is a discussion forum. Leaving in the middle of a discussion is counterproductive and rude. I look forward to you providing a sensible and informative reply so that we can get back to discussing the science.

I read your post. My remarks stand. I now strongly suspect that I have understood what you wrote and that what you wrote was purest nonsense. Here is my position: A proportion of the energy output of the sun is invested in its magnetic field, a portion in the solar wind, a portion in the generation of neutrinos and the greater part in electromagnetic radiation. Of the portion creating the solar magentic field and the solar wind only a tiny proportion impacts upon the Earth's magnetic field and only a minor proportion of this will influence the core. Your statements made in earlier posts appear to deny this and seem to claim that the entire, or at least the greater part of the solar output, or certainly of its magnetic field, directly effects the core of the Earth. All I have been asking for you to do for the last several posts is to state that you are not claiming this. If that is/was your claim it pretty wells invalidates any reason we would have to take any of your arguments in this thread seriously. Why are your reluctant to make that statement?

I am supporting a couple of statements made by Alan that I stumbled upon when revisiting the thread, because those statements are valid and wholly consistent with current thinking on abiogenesis. You appear to be attacking his statements because you believe him to be a creationist, not because of the inherent value of the statements. I oppose such an approach when I see it, for it is unscieintific.

Look, the way you have written the passage I quoted earlier give the impression that the answers to my two questions would be as below: What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field? A very large proportion of it. What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth? All of it. I can see no good reason not to either confirm those would be your answers, or to give a preferred alternative. Frankly, your reluctance to responde gives the impression that you know you are mistaken and are trying to construct some 'excuse'. I doubt this is the case, but if you continue to avoid a response my suspicions will grow.

I look forward to seeing the revised calculation, but surely you can answer the two first questions qualitatively? What proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field? What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth? I am especially interested in your response to the second question. You still appear to be saying that the energy of the entire magnetic field of the sun impacts on the magnetic field of the Earth. Please address this in your next post.

No, I'm sorry, it does not answer the question. I am possibly being extremely dense. Let me try to explain again my confusion. Let me try it this way: what proportion of the sun's total energy ouput is contained within its magnetic field? What proportion of that field effects the magnetic field of the Earth? You still appear to have taken the total energy output of the sun and then calculated the effect this would have on the core of the Earth. If this is not what you are doing please, in addition to answering the two questions above, lay out the calculation in detail so I can see what numbers you are using and where they are from. May I recommend avoiding statements like this in future. They do not help move the discussion along in a producitve manner.

No, I want you to explain this: So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect: You appear to be applying the entire power output of the sun to the core of the Earth. Either justify why you are doing this, or explain to me how I have misunderstood what you have written.

I would be interested to see you deal with Billiard's justifiable puzzlement at your apparent application of the entire energy output of the sun to interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. This seems indefensible and therefore the conclusions you derive form it seem unwarranted. I am open minded enough to await your explanation (or a retraction).

You won't be leaving your actual life behind. You will be transforming your life experience in major ways. Properly experienced and appreciated this will be as valuable to you as the qualification you get at the end of it.

I am unable to agree with you Mootanman. I think Alan is introducing the flame and the crystal, primarily to point out that many of the characteristics of life are shared by other apects of nature. His underlying point is that the definition of life is unclear. I agree for several reasons: 1. Our definitions of life are based upon the singular occurence we are familiar with. If and when we encounter other life forms we may find ourselves completely redefining it. (Does dark matter admit life forms?) 2."On the occassion of a Workshop of Life, held in Modena, Italy in 2003, each member of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life was asked to give a definition of life. The 78 different answers 40 pages of the proceedings of the workshop." (Complete Course in Astrobiology Wiley & Sons 2007 p3) 3. Considerable passion is raised between biologists who debate whether or not viruses are alive. 4. You reject crystals, yet Cairns-Smith believes the first life was formed from, not on, a clay (i.e. crystal) matirx. 5. The disitinction between life and non-life is almost certainly artificial, an artifact of the human propensity to classify things in a digital rather than an analogue manner. There is likely a continuous spectrum of characteristics moving between the two.

Ed, I think Suzy is looking for things like assessing harvest quality and magnitude from sattelite imagery; or, identifying hydrocarbon seepages via ultra-sensitive chromatogrpah analysis from planes flying a grid pattern. Unfortunately, Suzy, my knowledge in this area is a few decades out of date. These links might help you: Object based image analysis for remote sensing International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

I see absolutely nothing to disagree with here. I really hope no serious members will argue against it on the basis of who is making the statement, rather than what the statement is. We have some excellent general ideas about how abiogenesis may have occured, but presently lack any convincing, plausible set of detailed steps. I strongly suspect we shall eventually arrive at such a point, but we are distant at this point. If we were not distant, then the fundamental disagreements, such as those between de Duve and Monod - both Nobel Laureates - could not arise.

In my earlier reply I attempted to make it clear that what you are trying to explore and suggesting may be the case. I did not claim some great desire to educate the masses: I stated very simply that my objective was to learn. In other words, my motivation is primarily selfish. How do I learn? By seeking to answer questions whose answers I know well with outstanding clarity, and to answer questions I am less familiar with the wnaswers to by employing proper literature research. The net result is that I, assuredly, learn and, one hopes, readers of my post may also learn. In a secondary situation, such as this one, expressing opinions helps me sort out my own thinking: once again a selfish goal, but from time to time the thoughts may be beneficial to others. That's a nice bonus.

I don't have time to search out details right now, but this concept was, I thought, pretty weel known. It has been a growing concern for some years. I'm just en route back from Dubai and there was a local newspaper article there a day or two ago bemoaning the irresponsibel use of anti-biotics in the Emirates because it was leading towards exactly the sceanrios described in the article. And yes, we are absolutely driving the evolution of these resistant strains of bacteria. I should have thought that rather obvious just by consideration of natural selection coupled with a propensity for a proportion of the population to fail to complete a course of ABs.

Since the article is clearly written and well structured and you have, I presume, actually read it, then I am at a loss to know what you are asking that is not already contained within the article.

I'll try again. Do the subduction and sea floor creation occur simultaneously, or largely at separate times, in your model? Your answer above has some implications as to the answer, but introduces ambiguities, and is certainly not a simple, direct answer. Please provide one now. When you have written it, please review it to ensure it is simple and direct, or amend as necessary.

I rather think that at least some here are rather missing the point of the main values of discussions such as the one on this Time cube (which I missed). It is not the possibility of convincing the ideas proposer they are wrong, it is the opportunity for lurkers to see crazy ideas examined, tested and dismantled in a reasonably scientific manner. That can be an important means of fulfilling any educational function the forum may have.

I am not wading through thirty pages to try to find a yes/no answer. I'll wiat for arc to respond. But thank you for the link.

I certainly agree with you that the abstract could be reformed. All the words preceding my model is dependent on could be removed without loss. However, he makes no mention in here of other points that he laters places great emphasis on. One immediately springs to mind: unless I am seriously mistaken he claims that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. That ought to be in his abstract. And as one works through his material ideas are thrown out haphardly. They are not integrated into a cohesive whole. Other research is cherry picked to provide support. And more ideas are thrown around. An Australian friend used to use an expression that seems apposite here: all over the place like a mad woman's shit. One has to be impressed by the volume of material he has explored. I am simply not convinced, on what is presented here, that he has actually assimilated any of it.However, I'll give it another go. Arc, is the statement above still applicable? You claim that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. Remember, I cannot handle anything other than a short, simpel answer.

Or be quite good at faking it.