Ophiolite

Thank you BigNose. That saves me a bunch of work. Popcorn Sutton, what drives you to be so seriously wrong? I'm intrigued.

By definition it exists, else the frigging animal would not be a Triceratops. Perhaps you are just expressing yourself badly (very badly). The evolutionary trajectory of any line is determined by two things, primarily: genetic character, including random changes in that character; selective processes, contingent upon environment. Do you accept, ot deny this?

It is certainly not libellous, unless they are taking notes about how sad and mournful they feel. You might be able to make an argument for it being slanderous.

Let me expand upon what Mootanman said. You suggest that a triceratops, in the absence of T-Rex, would not grow its 'face shield'. This is incorrect. The genetic programming would lead to the development of the face shield. Over many generations the face shield might diminish and even disappear, but this would be the result of changes in its genetic structure, i.e evolution.

Because photons are massless. They do not possess any inherent mass.

What is it about the ad that annoys you? It also interests me that you even see the ad. The ads to me are background noise that I do not see. Until you mentioned it I was not even aware that there were ads in that position.

I normally find myseld echoing your thoughts ajb, but not on this occassion. A stop watch, a ball bearing and an inclinded plane are not expensive. The principles of the experimental method can be taught with any experiment. Here I tend to agree. My own experience was the Scottish educational system in the 1960s. We were taught the basics of the scientific method, but it seemed to be implicit. I'm not sure I truly grasped it until almost forty years later. I would argue that far more important is some way to convey the excitement, wonder and wow factor of science, without descending to rampant dramatisation in the manner of many TV documentaries.

So why am I getting ads for nanotechnology products when I've been searching for penis enlargement? Is it a conspiracy?

Welcome to the forum loonytoony It is an interesting subject, but you need to be very cautious about what you learn from documentaries. These are produce for two primary reasons: to generate an audience by providing entertainment. As a consequence, two things happen to the science content: It is greatly simplified. The most dramatic (and sometimes outlandish) interpretations of the data are presented This problem is much worse with the small documentaries you may see on YouTube. There are some outstanding exceptions to the general rule that science on YouTube is best ignored. I have not seen any on Earth Expansion Theory that fit into that category. Earth expansion theory (EET) does, initially sound quite plausible. Geologists struggled for more than a century after the birth of the science to explain mountain building. Earth expansion was one explanation that attracted some (minor) attention. This was reinforced when sea floor spreading was first recognised in the 1950s. However, at the same time the plate tectonics paradigm was being developed. With the subduction zones that had been identified, where oceanic crust was absorbed into the mantle, there was now need of EET to explain how room was made for new crust. In short, EET was an interesting idea, a plausible suggestion - bar the absence of any mechanism for the huge volume increase noted by Moontanman - but it is an idea that has been superseded by a far more productive explanation: plate tectonics. Dekan should also note that the Earth is cooling and when things cool they contract. They don't expand. You have identified one of the many weaknesses in the theory. There is no problem explaining the water of the oceans with plate tectonic theory. The bulk of it arrived by comet or asteroid during the first half billion years or so of the planet's life. Some has been produced by subsequent degassing of the mantle. I think you would get a lot more pleasure from following the conventional ideas in geology, for which there is such a wealth of supporting information no one person could process it all in their lifeltime.

If your hypothesis is correct how do you explain the absence of coesite and stishovite from rocks in the supervolano? How do you explain the absence of impact breccias? How do you explain the absence of an ejecta blanket? How do you explain of an impact structure? In short, how do you explain the absence of all the key pieces of evidence that support an impact hypothesis?

Yes. As noted by Swanson all research craft have one or other form of propulsion for making small adjustments to their position., attitude and trajectory. Science fiction movies and TV programs have a lot to answer for. Space is mainly empty even in the asteroid belt, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud. You have very little chance of running into anything. Passing 'above' the belt is not necessary to avoid collisions.

Of course you were. And the fact that your other four posts were equally bland and uninformative wouldn't be because you are some form of troll or bot, would it?

No, it will not be possible to accept your 'theory'. The reason: it lacks any supporting evidence; it lacks any quantitative detail; it lacks any justification; it is a tissue of imagination and a rather dry imagination at that. Earlier I believe I called it nonsense. I apologise to the members for being too kind.

The normal appellation for the Appalachians is Appalachian. Calling them Appalation is not palatable, though it may be thought appalling.; definitely not appealing. Worth noting that there was a stillborn split in the North Sea, which gave rise (or more accurately fall) to the Central North Sea Graben, which is where most of the North Sea oil is to be found. Google triple junction. I am passingly familiar with the geology along the Jurassic coast, as one of the courses my department offers is a combined classroom and field trip to the area. (Don't get excited: it is purely an internal course for our employees only - and if we did offer it publicly it would set you back £2,000 +.) I'm less familiar with the older material to the east, though it does contain an ophiolite complex. This is a slice of ancient ocean crust and mantle that has been thrust onto continental crust during plate collision. I'll see what I can put together for you.

Geology is the study of the Earth: how it formed, how it has changed over time and the processes that promote those changes. If you want the minimum soundbite - geology is about change in the planet. There are many subdivisions of geology. Here are some of the more important: Historical geology Stratigraphy Sedimentology Pertrology Mineralogy Geophysics Palaeontology Structural geology I was trained on the basis that field work was an essential ingrediant of geology: get out and hit the rocks with a hammer; see the lie of the land; sense the development of the environments and structures. Do you mean you would like a summary of the geology of the South West?

You haven't addressed my central point.

I suppose the simplest thing to do would be to ignore this nonsense. That, however, is rather selfish and serves only myself. The next simplest thing is to state that it is nonsense and hope my established credentials on the forum will cause the casual reader to accept my judgement. However, if they are following the principles I advocate they would be sceptical of an argument from authority. That leaves me with the rather boring task of demonstrating - if it is not self evident - that the post is nonsense. I don't have time to do that comprehensively, so think of these brief notes as pointers to the foolishness within. The term Super Existence is nonsense. It is word salad, mumbo-jumbo, gobbledegook. No evidence is presented for its reality. Its properties are not defined. Such things as are claimed for it - for example mind-body duality - have already been refuted by science. Terminology, well established within science, is abused and misinterpreted witht the recklessness that typifies the writing of a crank. Contrary Impression of Super Existence (CISE) is a concept for which there is zero evidence. It is a wholly made up term and concept bearing no meaningful relationship to any aspect of reality. Almost as an aside, homeopathy has been shown to be a valueless concept. Placing this nonsense in the Modern and Theoretical Physics sub-forum is offensive. MahahMon should be roundly condemned for posting such trash under the guise of science. I so condemn him.

@wannabeZoologist, Keep in mind that as you work through your degree it is very likely that your interests will change. You may find what fasinates you now will become droll and tedious, while a new field, of which you are currently unaware, will come under the spotlight. By all means have a goal, but remember that one great human strength is adaptability.

More than two hundred years, fewer than ten thousand. Edit: and as a geologist, thinking on a geological time scale, that translates into now.

Perhaps you need to define usefullness. Science has arisen out of a two fold drive: one is to develop technology, which is by definition useful, and the other is to gather informaiton and understanding for the shear joy of having that information and understanding. If you consider possessing that knowledge is useful because one uses it to feel energised through possessing it, then I'll accept that usefulness is an important aspect of science. But if you mean we need to able to use that knowledge productively in - ulitmately an economic sense, then bollocks: you are seriously mistaken. To take your example, the fact that you worked five steps further than someone 10,000 km away becomes interesting if we know more about how far other people have walked; if we can relate distance walked to age, sex, occupation, nationality, social class, etc. And if we gather information about that and analyses it carefully then we are conducting science. Will it produce something useful? Who knows and who (apart from those providing funding) actually cares - it is intrinsically interesting. It doesn't matter if it is useful or not.

I thnk it is just you. Internet trolling provides an interesting example of a particular mindset. The motiviations and methods should be of interest and value to anyone intrigued by human behaviour. Of course, if you do not believe the proper study of humans is humans then I can see why you would view this as a waste of time. That viewpoint in itself is interesting. (And welcome to the forum.)

1. We would not be able to revive an extinct species. We could, perhaps, recreate a species that shared many of the features of now extinct species. 2. Why would insects come back with them? That makes no sense. 3. Cockroaches are far more succesful than dinosaurs ever were.

The argument is that lightning strikes could have created more complex chemicals on the route to life. Invoking lightning as an agent in the process is not foolish, or disregarded.

Seek professional help.

That was your first mistake. Misapplying your imagination was your second. The rest followed naturally on from these.