Ophiolite

I take it you have never been employed in a small, medium, or large sized company, nor observed the politics of schools and universities, or of organised religions, women's sewing circles, boy scout troops, or just about any human organisation involving more than one person. Perhaps you should get out more.

Why are perception and reality seen as distinct entities? Because it really seems that way to me.

We do not yet have a deep enough understanding of earhquake mechanics and the inter-relationships of fault and tectonic systems to be able to predict the consequence of a 'trigger' event. Also, a more practical approach, rather than explosions, would be to lubricate the fracture planes to encourage slow creep along the fault rather than sudden movement.

I am fascinated and bewildered by the posters who indulge in this behaviour. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is unflattering to their intellect and their personality. What troubles me is that one in a thousand, or in ten thousand may actually have an interesting idea, but they will be lost in the Sea of Stupidity.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if the current trend of surveillance and secrecy continues, then in fifty years time the only realistic world view will reside with conspiracy theorists.

I can see how bathing in lettuces would take your mind of a lot of things.

Yes. The Earth will be but a shadow of its former self.

Hello pantheory/forest. My response is the same as it was when you posted this in another place. Well, it is interesting, but some points of clarification may be helpful. First, as background, the use of sequence in Hubble sequence, remains troubling. It still misleads people into thinking it represents an evolutionary pathway for galaxies, rather than being a series of galactic shapes related by morphogical similarity, not a succession of different ages. Also, as an aside, the article is misleading in that it says the study is the result of studying CANDEL data from Hubble, whereas the paper makes clear the source of the data includes Hubble, but also the VLT (Very Large Telescope), CFHT (Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope), Spitzer and Chandra data sets. The article's conclusions and short quotes from the lead author appear to conflict with the conclusions in the paper, or certainly pantheory's conclusions conflict with the paper's conclusions. Pantheory appears to argue that the research shows no meaningful difference between much younger galaxies in the past and those closer, older galaxies we view today. This is a faulty view. Specifically, the paper begins by noting several studies that have established evolution of galaxies over time. These include, but are certainly not limited to, the following:Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 752 Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, 13 Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265 Arnouts, S., Walcher, C. J., Le F`evre, O., et al., 2007, A&A, 476, 137 Marchesini, D., Van Dokkum, P. G., F¨orster-Schreiber, N. M., 2009, et al., ApJ, 701, 1765 Ilbert, O., Salvato, M., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 644 Brammer, G. B., Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., et al., 2011, ApJ, 739, 24 Daddi, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680 Cimatti, A., Cassata, P., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 21 Then, using the data sets referred to earlier, the authors make these observations that indicate differences between different ages of galaxy. We find that at 1 < z < 3 the passively evolving ETGs are the reddest and most massive objects in the Universe. This implies that an embryo of the Hubble Sequence, in the sense of a correlation between morphology, mass, color and star–formation activity of galaxies, is already in place at z ~ 3. We measure a significant evolution of the mass–size relation of ETGs from z ∼ 3 to z ∼ 1, with the average size of galaxies increasing by roughly a factor of ∼2 over this redshift interval, corresponding to 3 Gyrs of cosmic time. We witness the build up of the most massive ETGs, with their number density increasing by 50 times between z ∼ 3 and z ∼ 1. In short, pantheory has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies. If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

On other forums people are displaying the same mix of polite indifference, strong distaste and active debunking as is the case here. Members who are well educated in physics have explained the weaknesses in your presentation. You have chosen to ignore them. You ask that people should be open minded to new ideas. Please answer this: do you understand that new ideas must match previous observations?

It is true a portion of the Earth's internal heat is a consequence of the kinetic energy of the accretion process for the planet and thus determined by the gravitational attraction of the particles that accrete. However, a substantial part of the internal heat arises because of radioactive decay - that's not gravity.

It's fun to speculate, but ultimately the clue is in the question: aliens would look...........alien.

Delusional nonsense that is one of the few things that could incline me to the view that some form of censorship on the internet could be a good idea. Persons spawning this intellectual dross should probably be ejected from the species. Abusing ones brain in this way should be criminal. Strange wondered if someone might do a more detailed critique. For that you would need someone who is into coprophilia. I hope that assessment is of some value to you.

This is incorrect. Why do you believe this to be true?

If I know multiplication tables up to 6 x 6, I know the rules to construct them up until any arbitrary limit. I have a vocabulary of between 25,000 and 60,000 words, depending upon how tightly you define a word. Yet someone can get by very well speaking 2,000 words or less. That's not even 10% of the language. You are correct that there is still a great deal to learn about the planet, but we have defined - to a great deal of accuracy - many of the broad principles of how it functions and how it evolved through time. So I agree with you and your friend. We do have a good grasp of how the world works, and there is still much to discover.

If we actually were an intelligent species we would solve that problem by restricting population growth and then, for a time, reversing it. A simple calculation would show you how long it would take a small colony to overrun the entire planet. (With a starting population of around 10,000 and a plausible growth rate it takes less than 700 years. That is instantaneous in evolutionary, cosmological and geological terms.)

The members of this forum do not represent a meaningful cross section of the population. Your assertion may well be correct. Or it may be wrong. Determining which is true cannot be based upon personal anecdote, or poorly constructed opinion polls.

Not exclusively. The mathematical aspects of plate tectonic theory, for example, are important - Euler and poles of rotation - but they are not central to the theory. You've spent too much time with cyclotrons.

Again, i really don't understand what you are getting at. Here are some points. 1. It is unlikely there is life on Mars. If there is no life on Mars it is very unlikely to develop there at any time in the future. 2. If there is life on Mars it almost certainly comparable with single celled organisms on Earth. In manymillions of years time it will not change in any significant way, beacuse the Martian environment will not change in any significant way. 3. Therefore, regardless of whether or not we are here it is unlikely that anything will hav ;fully evolved' on Mars. 4. Fully evolved does not make any sense. You seem to have the false idea that humans are more evolved than bacteria. They are not. You need a very specific and msileading definition of evolution for that to be true. I can expand on this point if you wish.

It is not relevant, but I do not feel alienated from my children. I see my son only occasionally and that is primarily when he needs something from me. I don't see a problem with that. It's nice that when he needs help, money, or advice he turns to his father. Is he using me? Of course he is: that's my biological function. If you don't understand your role in maintaining three and a half billion years of successful reproduction perhaps you should step aside.

Thank you. I'll look forward to that. Sleep well. Edit: Unable to open video. Probably protected by company firewall. So, i really do need to see your summary tomorrow.

I am not sure what you mean. If there are any bacteria on Mars, then they are already capable of living there. Contrary to popular understanding, bacteria are complex organisms. Perhas you mean that, in time, these bacteria could evolve into even more complex, multi-cellular organisms. If that is what you meant, then no. The environment either is capable of supporting such organisms now, in which case they would be there; and one thousand years is insufficient time, by several orders of magnitude, for such evolution to take place.

As a matterof principle I rarely view videos linked through forums. I find concepts much more credible when their proponents are able to express the key elements in clear, concise terms. So another principle I follow is to ignore links like these until such times as the proponent offers such a summary. (I'll make a deal with you: if you don't find that position rude, I won't find your position rude, either.)

I suspect you are somewhat persuaded by the thesis of the video. In that case would you take the time to summarise that central argument here please - in your own words.

More, I think. Much more.

One answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are the first. There is sound evidence that make this solution plausible: namely the requirement for high metallicity GMCs to deliver habitable envirnments and the times required to generate sufficient volumes of such GMCs; and the extensive length of time (a significant proportion of the age of the universe) for intelligence, with a technological capcity, to emerge.