Ophiolite

It is my impression that calling something a Law is an archaic process. As the scientific method has evolved it has led to improved recognition that all results and theories are provisional. The continued use of the word law for something like Newton's Laws of Motion is a form, appropriately enough, of inertia. As I say, this is an impression. What is the most recent Law any of you are aware of, ignoring anything from the Social Sciences? (Since anything from the Social Sciences usually is best ignored.) Edit: I somehow failed to read the previous post. I see I have made much the same point as decraig. Excuse the repetition, but I'd still like to know when was the last time something was named as a law.

In this context, sex. To the OP, the question is unanswerable. Aliens would be alien and therefore, as Ed Earl has suggested, their thinking would be impenetrable. The problem is, I suspect, that in your mind alien means intelligent being from another planet, when it actually means strange, unknown, different.

Are you saying that Too Open Minded is an airhead?

What you should be asking is "How do I become a Resident Expert?" Resident Experts get all the women, all the glory and none of the work.

Excellent. Then you can point me to his clear concise abstract. I look forward to reading it.

But it is your job to explain the model clearly and concisely and to address queries in a similar fashion. This you typically fail to do.

Salesmanship.

Click on the battery/power icon on the lower right of your display. Select More Power Options. Select Change Power Settings. Select Change Advanced Power Settings Select Change Settings That Are Currently Unavailable Select Battery Select Low Battery Level Change Battery % for low battery action I've never tried this. Let me know if it works.

And most ancient fish aren't..................fish.

What about one that's not dead, but just catatonic?

Based on current politics, I think you'll find any two languages will fit the bill.

Meanwhile we wait patiently for you to move to the next step of the scientific process and provide one or more of the following: 1. An explanation for why some of your claims are contradicted by evidence. 2. Justification via reasoned argument, or peer reviewed research justifying your claims. 3. Suggested means of testing or falsifying your hypothesis. In the absence of one or more of these what you have offered is not science and takes on the appearance of word salad. As such it has no place in a science forum. Will you offer us any of the three actions I have proposed?

"Britain and America are two nations separated by a common language." This statement, generally, but not convincingly attributed to George Bernard Shaw, belies the OPs argument.

I visited Iran round about 2000. The walls of the baggage hall in Tehran airport were decorated with a garish mural depicting armed conflict and topped with some prominent writing in Farsi. We asked the Mr. Fix It who was facilitating our way through customs and immigration what it said. "It just says Death to all the foreign infidels, but you are very welcome." Indeed, throughout our stay, in Tehran and Awas, we were received with nothing but kindness and respect. More than a decade has passed, but I suspect underlying attitudes are similar. There is propoganda and there is reality.

Arc, I have highlighted a point connected to my failure to honour my intention of arguing through your hypothesis with you. Honestly, I just can't face the pile of unrelated material you pile into every response without ever answering the original question, or addressing the original point. It leaves me flat and demotivated. As an example, what billirds is looking for in response to his question is something like: The radius should vary between 6,100 km _/- 20 and 6,450 km +/- 15. Anything other than that is not a brief and dirct response and will frustrate the heck out of me. If you can provide that I can try to get involved again. I sincerely want to, but your approach is making it difficult for me. (Billiards, if I have in misinterpreted your expectations please correct me and accept my apology.)

This reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a close friend from Egypt. We were discussing which nation was the most arrogant, in his view. We had narrowed it down to the Americans, the British and the French. He then, rather apologetically said that on balance he would have to vote for the British, but he was not quite sure why. "That's easy to explain." I responded. "The Amercians and the French think they are better than everyone else, yes?" "Yes." "Where as the British know we are better than everyone else." He leapt up with the light of recognition in his eyes: "Yes, that is it exactly!"

Your prediction of its appearance would have been more convincing if you had told us about it before the event. Some of us are funny that way.

The discipline of writing clear, concise, yet comprehensive abstracts should be encouraged at all times and at all levels. I am enthusiastically in favour of this.

Again, the net motions of the GMC following collapse lead to a concentration of material, the bulk of which is gas, at a point determined by those net motions and gravity. That becomes the centre. There is plenty of gas throughout the rest of the accretion disc until the proto-star reaches the T-Tauri stage and 'blasts' any gas that has not accreted to planets, especially gas and ice giants, out of the system. I am at a loss to explain it any more clearly.

Some inactions are inherently sound.

Are you seriously contending that statements by human beings come close to being reflections of absolute reality? Frankly, your beliefs are worthless, as are mine, and the universe and anything that preceeded it are wholly indifferent to them. Any other attitude is imbued with hubris and is decidely unscientific.

I guess if you went to a third rate school it would be easy to develop third rate ideas.

So, in summary, you have made an assertion that you will not provide any evidence to justify. You simply argue that we should accept your word that it is so. (For all I know your bank account is not in credit and when you lost the bet we would 'win' the obligation to bring it into balance.) You clearly stated that science has ignored this field. I clearly demonstrated that it has not. You then, rather than at least conceding that point, shifted the goalposts. I find that dishonest. In combination with your unwillingness to provide evidence to support your assertions (something required by forum rules) I see no value of continuing a discussion with you.

The bad news is that the day did not progress as hoped, so not cheque for you. The good news is that my Doomsday device did not work.

Could you explain why you have limited yourself to Neptune and Jupiter? Why not Saturn and Uranus, or Mercury and Mars - at least this one has alliteration? I'd also like to ask what sort of punishment you expect would be meted out and under what jurisdiction and legal instruments would it be applied?