Ophiolite

Please provide examples of where this has happened. To save us both time, I am not interested in anecdotes, I want well documented instances of where "the scientific community has shunned people trying to conduct respectable research." While you are doing that you could explain how the following studies were able to take place in such an atmosphere of prejudice as you suggest exists: Out of body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin The Out-of-Body Experience: Disturbed Self-Processing at the Temporo-Parietal Junction Visualizing Out-of-Body Experience in the Brain The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences These are just four examples from one page on Google Scholar, from a search for "out of body experience". Each of the articles contains several references to other research (doubtless some of them duplicated). There are over 10,000 hits in total. A search for "near death experience" generates over 16,000 hits. Granted many of these will make only passing mention of the topic (but is will be mentioned) and even if only 10% focus on it, that still means 1,600 research papers exploring some aspect of the phenomenon. So, how do you justify your claim that this research is discouraged, even shunned, when scores, possibly hundreds of researchers have been engaged in it and their findings are being published in reputable journals?

The sun is composed primarily of hyrdogen and helium. Because of its great mass the central portions undergo considerable compression, despite this its gaseous nature accounts for its low density. The Sun has a low density only in comparison with the terrestrial planets. Consider these data of the densities in grams/cc: Sun - 1.41 Mercury 5.43 Venus 5.24 Earth 5.52 Mars 3.94 Jupiter 1.33 Saturn 0.7 Uranus 1.3 Neptune 1.76 Note that three of the four giant planets have densities lower than the sun. As noted in your quote solids condense out of the accretion disc and form planetary embryos. The giant planets form cores large enough to attract large volumes of gas. When the proto-sun enters the T-Tauri stage is blasts most of this gas out of the system, leaving the gas and ice giants with rocky cores but a low density, while the terrestrial, rocky planets have a high density because of their silicate and iron composition. Does that help? Reading the full quote I seem to have largely repeated what they said, so I'm not clear what it is you don't understand. The explanation is present in both the quote and what I have said.

In addition to the above, when you run over a rabbit with your car you kill one of your relatives; when you eat a tomato you consume one of your relatives; when you disinfect a counter top you kill millions of your relatives. All life on Earth has a common ancestor. You, and the E.coli in your gut, are the product of three and half billion years of survivors.

An interesting topic. I hope tsmspace is still around and may respond. Could you provide citations for the former. I would have expected the literature to show the reverse. Are you taking into account that in most hydrocarbon exploitation the majority of the hydrocarbon is left in the ground? The word dramatically is qualitative. The principle change is one of reservoir pressure, with - in some instances - some associated subsidence. What evidence would you produce to support the assertion that a pressure change - typically a reduction by half - would have a dramatic effect on the biology. Seepage is not a widespread occurence. You seem to be arguing that it is. Could you clarify please. More to the point reservoirs are generally isolated from the surface, which is why they are reservoirs rather than conduits. If their is seepage it is typically not coming from a reservoir. I am not persuaded that seepage is widespread. I accept that it would have an impact on its local environment. I don't think that is disputed. So, I am not sure quite what your central point is.

I agree. However, I am - as I think you know - not one of those nutters with a crazy idea who just leaps in and starts promulgating it without something of substance to back it up. I've been accumulating data and understanding on the topic (at a very slow, episodic pace) for a decade or more. Still miles away from having anything that could even constitute a half-baked hypothesis.Perhaps one day.

So, to be brief and perhaps brutal, your argument is that anecdotal evidence is a sound basis for constructing a hypothesis. It is my impression that most scientists would disagree with you. I do not deny the nature of OBEs and NDEs. I question your interpretation of them when scientific analysis has provided a meaningful solution different from yours.

Is childbirth a sphere of society and if it is how do you propose to institute gender equality in relation to it? If it is not, on what grounds are you excluding it?

Produce peer reviewed articles confirming these assertions please, including suitable confirmations by independent researchers also published in peer reviewed journals.

I am partial to interstellar pan spermia. I find the rapidity of the appearance of life on the Earth coupled with the probable necessary complexity of that early life and the absence, thus far, of a detailed pathway for that emergence cause me to explore alternatives. But this is moving us off topic.

Unless pan spermia has traction as a hypothesis.

Hello morosj. This sounds like interesting homework. The general rule we follow here on helping with homework is that we need you to offer some ideas yourself. Then several members would likely be happy to comment on these and offer further suggestions. We won't just give you the information without some effort on your part. I am sure you will understand this is in order to help you to learn. After all, the primary objective is to learn, not to turn in a homework assignment.

The majority of radioactive elements are found in the Earth's mantle. There are no significant quantities in the core. (I am ignoring a plausible, but generally discounted hypothesis that there is a uranium fission reactor at the very centre of the planet.) Since the radioactive decay raises the temperature of the mantle then heat loss from the core is reduced, allowing it to cool more slowly than would otherwise be the case. The precise mechanisms for convection within the solid mantle are a matter of active debate. However, the net effect is to generate movement of crustal plates in response to some combination of convection current drag, slab pull from descending plates and push from new crust generated at mid-ocean ridges. There is no magma in the Earth's core, which is composed primarily of iron and some nickel. There are convection currents. Those generate the Earth's magnetic field. The Pacific Ring of Fire is not a hot spot. It tracks the locations in which oceanic crust is descending below (generally) continental crust. As the plate with associated sediments sinks into the mantle partial melting occurs and magma makes its way to the surface. The downward movement of the plates generates the earthquakes. Hot spots include those responsible for the Hawaian Islands and Iceland. Please ask further questions if necessary.

Is that a comment on alien philosophy? Do you mean to say that aliens wouldn't give a shit?

First, you need to plot as a scatter plot, not as a line plot. Did you do this? Secondly, as Edny said, right click precisely on the axis. Select Format Axis from the drop down menu that appears. (It should be the last option on the menu.) Axis Options allows you to define major and minor units. If this does not give you what you are looking for then, as I requested before, you need to provide a clearer explanation of what the problem is.

I don't think it is an analogy. It is a direct comparison of two events that are in the same class.

Yes, I thought you would appreciate the irony.

I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I suspect what you are looking for is a scatter plot. If that does not work, please come back and clarify your request.

He didn't make a conclusion, he said the results suggested a motive. If you are going to attack his logic you should make sure yours is impeccable.

The universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.JHaldane The singularity is generally considered to be evidence that the equations no longer work that close to the zero point. the universe is indiferent to the incredulity of humans.

I agree wholeheartheadly with you swansont. It is morning for me and I was feeling especially vindicitive. I felt by offering him a way of solving his problem without understranding I might, with a bit of luck, undermine his whole future as a scientist, or engineer, since this would encourage him to find shortcuts to answers without understanding process. Your timely reminder has caused me to relent and I hope this explanation will inspire wanted90 to get his/her act togther and start thinking. As you can see the morning has advanced sufficiently to convert vindictiveness to mischieviousness. By lunch I hope to be normal and by tea time Mother Teresa won't have a look in.

I think, on closer examination, you will find Strange's point - though not infinitely dense - is how current theoreticians view the issue. (I was going to say "view the matter", but someone would have responded that it was all energy.)

Welcome to the forum Aydan. You asked for responses from atheists. I am a devout agnostic, but I am an atheist in respect of the Christian God, for whom I see zero evidence. I'd like to respond to your fossil points. One of the things that alternately amuses and frustrates me is that most persons using this line of argument are talking about verterbrate fossils. The majority of palaeontologists are not working in vertebrate palaeontology. When you examine the fossil record in regard to invertebrates such as graptolites, echinoderms, ammonites, trilobites, brachiopods, etc then it is an almost continuous stream of non-controversial, hugely numerous, uncontroversial forms. Sure, from time to time a particular species gets moved to another position. And academics like a good argument as much, or more, as the next man, so debates do arise. But in the grand scheme of things, if one has examined even a small part of the vast volume of data, then each of these points will be promptly discarded. In terms of the vertebrates I'd like to comment on kindheart's contribution. I agree wholeheartedly with his first point. All fossils are transitional. However, why don't we find more examples of the intermediate stages? For this I would need to go into a very lengthy discussion on the process and likelihood of fossilisation. All the invertebrate fossils I mentioned above are marine, or fresh water creatures. Preservation is much more likely for these. It is interesting that one of the best lines of evidence for evolution in a vertrbarate family is for whales, anothe marine species. Simply put, land animals rarely get into a situation where they can be fossilised. We then need to have the good luck for their remains to be exposed at the surface and for us to stumble on that location before it is eroded and lost. In relation to kindheart's other two comments, I believe these need amending. The conventional illustration he refers to lacks scientific consistency and is best avoided. There is abundant debate as where to place particular australopithocenes in the evolutionary tree, or even whether some are austalopithocenes, or should be part of another genus entirely. Such debate is loud, passionate and sometimes metaphorically violent. Creationists pounce on this as evidence that it is all nonsense. However, consider these to alternate questions: Ask researchers if fossil A is ancestral to man and you will get the disagreement I spoke of. Ask researchers if fossil A is on a branch reasonably close to the evolutionary line of man and you will get essentially universal agreement. A similar issue exists for Archaeopteryx. I think kindheart may find its status a direct dinosaur to bird ancestor has changed. That does not devalue its use as evidence of the kind of evolutionary changes that were leading to that transition. So, kindheart's essential idea remains. Your three points are incorrect. Hope that helps.

When you drill, or bohr down to the sub-atomic level interesting observations can be made. Bohr always kneels at his equipment when he is working. And before I give you the good ones, I echo pears, what is this for?

Or, for those with long memories, we could disinter Alexander Haig. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-287292.html

Units conversion calculators