Ophiolite

We mount the cameras in insects, or penguins. We just loved the problem you had with the pasta.

I beg to differ - a polite way of saying you are wrong. Here is the relvant passage from Darwin's letter to Hooker in which the primordial soup makes its first appearance, admittedly without being called such. "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." What is Darwin's electricity if not lightning strikes?

The battle continues: Robertson, D.S. et al "K-Pg extinction: Reevaluation of the heat-fire hypothesis" Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences March 2013 Abstract The global debris layer created by the end-Cretaceous impact at Chicxulub contained enough soot to indicate that the entire terrestrial biosphere had burned. Preliminary modeling showed that the reentry of ejecta would have caused a global infrared (IR) pulse sufficient to ignite global fires within a few hours of the Chicxulub impact. This heat pulse and subsequent fires explain the terrestrial survival patterns in the earliest Paleocene, because all the surviving species were plausibly able to take shelter from heat and fire underground or in water. However, new models of the global IR heat pulse as well as the absence of charcoal and the presence of noncharred organic matter have been said to be inconsistent with the idea of global fires that could have caused the extinctions. It was suggested that the soot in the debris layer originated from the impact site itself because the morphology of the soot, the chain length of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and the presence of carbon cenospheres were said to be inconsistent with burning the terrestrial biosphere. These assertions either are incorrect or have alternate explanations that are consistent with global firestorms. We show that the apparent charcoal depletion in the Cretaceous-Paleogene layer has been misinterpreted due to the failure to correct properly for sediment deposition rates. We also show that the mass of soot potentially released from the impact site is far too low to supply the observed soot. However, global firestorms are consistent with both data and physical modeling. I don't think the disagreement on this point is going to go away anytime soon. Which is good, as it makes for interesting science.

Pluto is not a planet.

I have not examined the literature on this for at least a decade. The initial idea was that there was a global 'fire flood' from impact ejecta re-entering the atsmosphere around the planet. A worldwide ash horizon was cited as evidence of this. Further research tended to the view that the total destruction of living plant life was not global in extent. The burst of fern growth shortly after certainly points to a devastaing impact on the other plant life. This was a question that was being actively debated in the 90s. I'll see what i can find about current views. This 2009 paper is an illuminating review. Here is a telling extract: It is recognized that there was a major disruption to plant communities across the K-Pg boundary (Tshudy et al., 1984; Sweet, 2001; Nichols and Johnson, 2002). These new modelbased results, taken together with the abundant literature on paleontological indicators of fire occurrence, suggest that extensive wild fires were not the cause. You may also find Plants and the KT Boundary of interest. I have not yet had an opportunity to digest it.

An assertion made 'in the name of science' that contradicts or denies received consensus views and does so without providing evidence to support those alternate views is well characterised as bizarre. This should be self evident. Once you return I trust you will address the questions asked implicitly and explicitly by several other members: what fault do you find with the current methodologies; what assumptions do you believe to be invalid. And a separate question. How did you come to believe that consnsus was not an integral part of science?

I am all for it. And beavers (some are already out there) and bear and lynx. Indeed anything that would feed on politicians and lawyers would be welcome.

There is nothing bizarre about reflecting the consensus view of science upon any issue: that is what I have done. However, I am perfectly happy to back up my claim with facts. You will find this link very helpful: http://exoplanet.eu/bibliography/ There you will find, currently, 497 pages of references to papers on exoplanets, detailing methedologies of detection, specific discoveries, discussions on orbital characteristics, reviews of potential habitability, etc. That is quite a substantial body of work for you to refute. So, over to you. Please comply this time.

I think the April may be superfluous.

fertilizer spike, welcome to the forum. You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the techniques used to identify exoplanets are faulty. It is normal practice on this forum - and is required b y the forum rules - that such an assertion needs to be backed up by facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognised text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

Given that the Earth's moon is unusually large and yet only masses 1/81 of the Earth it is, given present levels of precision, quite irrelevant as to whether the mass is included or not. Plus, you are assuming the planets are detected by wobble rather than, for example, dimming.

For some people this is simply untrue. The OP has a point, but is perhaps in danger of over-generalising. I suspect his observations apply to a minority of individuals, but apply they do.

You may need to defend that position. The observation may be useless to you, but to assert it is useless to humanity in general, or science in particular seems unfounded, The observation could give us insight into aspects of visual perception, hitherto unidentified. If the pattern (no pun intended)of gene expression is repeated in related genes that could provide insight into evolutionary pathways. Etc.

Whereas humans are dangerous civlised animals. In the competition wolf versus humans the score is currently very much in favour of the humans. And in case you didn't notice, part of our success as a species is down to the wolf who came in from the cold and helped to domesticate us - now commonly known as Man's best friend. Perhaps you are a cat person. Or do you want the cougars stamped out too?

It seems to me you need to consider not only the number of connections, but the complexity of each connection. That would relate, broadly, to the complexity of the equaiton defining the relationship across the connection.

Very true. The UK has an excellent climate. It is the weather that is dreadful.

This looks like homework. The policy here is that members will happily help you with your homework, but you have to show some evidence that attempted to determine the answers yourself. This is based on the presumption that when you grow up you may actually want to earn a living. Throw in some evidence you have made some attempt to answer and I am sure help will be forthcoming. But thank you for saying thanks.

And Jupiter turns infinitesimally slower as a consequence.

What would it take for you to admit that your not just wrong, but so wrong that if they gave Nobel prizes for wrongness you would sweep the board for the next century? That's a serious question. could you, for once, give a serious answer that is not seeped in dogma, loaded with agenda and permeated by obsession?

In relation to the myth of using only a small percentage of the brain, there is evidence in this thread that it may be true of some people.

Given the age of the thread when revitalised by zerodivine is that evidence for perpetual motion, at least of forum posts?

Do you also write unambiguous sentences?

At what stage did they intervene to create humans? Some minor manipulation to generate homo sapiens? Slightly more intervention to initiate a split of primates from rodents? Did they take out the dinosaurs to ensure mammals could come to the fore? Or, were they playing around to initiate abiogenesis back in the HAdean era, or something else inbetween? Where and how did they originate? This galaxy? A nearby galaxy? A very distant galaxy? Just how old are they? Is that age and evolutionary pathway consistent with the first appearance of Type I stars? The universe as known to whom? That smacks of the worst kind of space opera. Why would an alien spacecraft wish to take the Earth's atmosphere? There would be many more more plausible means of acquiring an atmospher than that. You either need to produce a very solid justification for such a 'B' movie plot device, or abandon it entirely. Guess which I recommend. I don't see any connectivity here. Earlier did you not say that the aliens guide species into space? That contradicts the idea of them observing the different ways species may arrive at space travel and space civilisation. More to the point, how do you make that interesting? Where is the dynamism? Where is the excitement? It seems lacking as described. What do you mean by 'maintaining a mjority of life in space'? Colonisation of other planets? Terraforming? O'Neil colonies? Ringworld? Dyson spheres? I don't see a book that incorporates the Illuminati as being genuine, appealing to the hard core sci-fi buff. You might get away with there being a powerful and knowledgeable elite who create the myth of the illuminati to distract attention away from themselves. Otherwise I don't see it working. Why? I don't see the plot advantage? Naive to the point fo being wrong. You need to mount a powerul argument to achieve a willing suspension of disbelief. It doesn't gel. They can get a species into space very quickly by telling them how to do it? What are they learning by this manipulative approach? How does it further, in any significant way, their declared goal of learning more about the universe?

@Seeking Science - I thinnk Griffon had probably correctly described what you were thinking about. The orbital characteristics of planets are quite complex. While they are dominated by the the sun the other planets, expecially Jupiter, do exert an influence on their orbits. This can produce resonances of the type Griffon refers to, or even induce chaotic effects in the very long term. They certainly cannot 'self correct' for changes to their orbit. This is for two reasons: firstly, Newton's First Law of Motion and secondly the term implies that there is some 'correct' orbit for the planet to follow.

I understand the octopoid denizens of Alpha Centauri 4 have a similar view in regard to suckered appendages and invertebrate anatomy.