Ophiolite

What is an electric field vacuum? Which great coming event? What is a core pulse? Would you like a link to an online spellchecker? Welcome to the forum.

We now have two persons on this thread who have seen UFOs and yet have avoided jumping to a concussion. Add me for a third. I've seen at least a handful. Most were identified before they went out of sight. The ones that were not differed only in minor detail to the ones that were identified. In short, nothing to see here; move along.

I've corrected your post for errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. Here is the improved version. We are in times of low geological activity compared with past history. But the silence can be broken in short notice. Of course there are signs that are written in the rising activity around the Earth's active hotspots. There is an increase in eathquakes. In places the ground is rising. The list is long, but still these technicians are all relaying only what can be interpreted from seismic measurements and other ground based observers instruments. As all with a little scientific knowledge know there is more than meets the eye. Even to begin understanding an unexplored, unseen mattter, there must be some basic hypothesis from which to work, that allows for new simulations and innovations. That would enable the matter to be confirmed or rejected. This is the mother of all science. In earths crust there is an observeable pulse with a time line within a15,000,000 year time cycle. The crust underneath hotspots such as Hawaii and other volcanic islands, rises and creates small blocks along their fault lines. It seems we are now 20,000,000 million years from the last such event?? No, that didn't help. It still seems to be bollocks.

Interestic, allow me to be direct. I do not intend to insult, or to direct personal slurs, but your post leaves very clear evidence from which certain objective conclusions may be reached with a high degree of confidence. 1. You have no practical knowledge of what science is, what the principles of scientific methodology are, how science is conducted, how scientists think about their work, or - indeed - any real knowledge of anything connected with science. 2. You have misinterpreted information, cherry picked data, twisted observations, concocted versions of imagined reality from baseless speculations, and generally invented a fanciful world with no foundation. 3. (This is incidental, but your spelling is crap and your grammar isn't much better. Best we not speak of your ability to construct a logical sequence of statements.) 4. If you are not already consulting a psychologist or psychiatrist, you might wish to consider whether this could help you in your daily interactions with people. I suspect these are quite stressful for you. I wish you well, but really, your nonsense is of little interest here.

If they are resident in the Oort cloud, where are they deriving their energy from. Out their the sun appears as no more than a bright star. Oort cloud objects are dominated by ices rather than lithophile elements, so radioactive sources are scanty. Are you assuming fusion? Plenty of hydrogen for that. What evolutionary pathway do you envisage to account for their distaste for planets and for proximity to stars?

Of course I didn't. That was a separate clause that has a connection with the first part and with reality only in your mind. You asked: Of course I do not expect you to have access to that equipment. But you had stated: Well, I have demonstrated that, in principle, it is possible. Would this be expensive? Yes, but very likely considerably less than the large Hadron collider or the ISS. Will you please have the decency to admit that your statement was wrong? Further, your statement regarding models and predictions not being part of science is, as pointed out by SwansonT, pure nonsense. Models and predictions are integral to the scientific method. Your statement confirms, if confirmation were needed, that you have no idea of the scientific method. One of the ways in which this is evident is your sloppy writing. (I say it is sloppy - the less flattering interpretation is that it is deliberately deceptive.) Here is an example: You state that There was also a letter from Dr. Russell Vernon Clark with a conclusion of non-terrestrial isotopes. Wow! Non-terrestrial isotopes. Isotopes that simply don't exist on Earth. That's pretty clear cut. But what is actually said? samples show some isotopic ratios consistent with an extraterrestrial origin Do you understand that unique isotopes and a different isotope ratio are radically different things? Radically different. Do you understand that faced with such carelessness in writing (or such syncism) it becomes almost mandatory to doubt anything you say?

Nonsense. A network of automatic cameras, linked to radar systems, yet capable of direct control when required, monitored 24/7 from a central control, with access to pursuit aircraft to investigate any unidentified sightings would provide the range of quality information necessary to investgate properly. Your remarks here seem to typify your approach: make blanket statements that are demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by such technique, but I assure you it will not serve to convince - rather the reverse.

This bizarre idea is to enclose the volcano in a vast structure. This would require something several miles in diameter and in excess of 6,000' in height. It would also have to be capable of withstanding ash ejections that, unimpeded, could rise to 60,000' plus and not be dismayed by a lateral nuee ardente with the energy of 24 megatons. Technically I view this as simultaneously imaginative and downright silly.

Excellent work pwagen. Thank you for taking the time to debunk this nonsense for the benefit of casual readers who may be initially attracted by the frisson of excitement surrounding the possibility of ET. That possibility, that we may be being visited by aliens, is far too important to be sidetracked by poorly argued cases such as that presented by ResistETInvasion

Captain Panic has identified one major flaw in your speculation. Here is another. Compute the energy involved in moving plates. Compute the energy involved in generating the Earth's magnetic field and the influence of solar wind/solar field on the Earth. Do you, perhaps, notice a difference in energy levels of more than an order of magnitude? How do you account for that? Secondly, could we see the math's of your simple model please. And just to emphasise the Captain's point. We know from precise GPS measurements that seafloor spreading is currently active. We know from events such as the Japanese and Boxing day tsunamis that subduction is active. How do you account for that?

Objects cannot reach superluminal speed. There is a vast body of evidence confirming that to be so. I have seen many bright spots of light in the sky, especially on very clear days when the bright sunlight can catch the metallic body of an aircraft and reflect it back to the ground. Such bright spots often appeared stationery because there was nothing to readily gauge motion against. You have assumed it to be stationary because you did not detect motion. That is quite different from it actually being stationary. A one semester course in college on the functioning of the human visual system would lead you to understand why your perception is very likely flawed. Or ceased to efficiently reflect light to your position on the ground. Your eyewitness testimony in this instance is of close to zero value. You are free to deceive yourself into believing you saw something significant. You will not convince anyone trained in the art of critical thinking.

In summary, you turned around several times while varying the position of a heavy object held in your hands. And you felt certain effects related to balance. And you believe these may be significant. I too have a belief. You are mistaken. Anyway, welcome to the forum and sorry to hear about your poor health.

This is pertinent to Tommy Gold's hypothesis. For example, Gold, T The Deep Hot Biosphere PNAS v89 (3) p 6045-6049 1992 Abstract There are strong indications that microbial life is widespread at depth in the crust of the Earth, just as such life has been identified in numerous ocean vents. This life is not dependent on solar energy and photosynthesis for its primary energy supply, and it is essentially independent of the surface circumstances. Its energy supply comes from chemical sources, due to fluids that migrate upward from deeper levels in the Earth. In mass and volume it may be comparable with all surface life. Such microbial life may account for the presence of biological molecules in all carbonaceous materials in the outer crust, and the inference that these materials must have derived from biological deposits accumulated at the surface is therefore not necessarily valid. Subsurface life may be widespread among the planetary bodies of our solar system, since many of them have equally suitable conditions below, while having totally inhospitable surfaces. One may even speculate that such life may be widely disseminated in the universe, since planetary type bodies with similar subsurface conditions may be common as solitary objects in space, as well as in other solar-type systems.

Very interesting. Clearly these brown dwarves deserve proper names. Thorin and Balin?

This creationist propoganda has no place in the Earth Science forum. The ignorant arguments presented in the video do not even merit a response.

Please stop posting more crap and address some of the points raised. Specifically this: You seriously think no one else would have noticed the appearance of a second sun? Tell me, where do you think it went to? I give you fair warning that if you fail to answer these questions and make a reasonable attempt at addressing similar points and queries from other posters I shall report your posts and request moderators take appropriate action.

You seriously think no one else would have noticed the appearance of a second sun? Tell me, where do you think it went to? More to the point, when you complete your master's thesis on "How practising scientists can be duped into arguing with an apparent fool for many weeks at a time on internet forums" would you send us a copy?

That is a wholly unwarranted assumption. I did not pick up on the fact that this was your belief. It would be perfectly reasonable to explore in a properly conducted, ethically founded study, to what extent incestuous relationships had led to suicide. To casually toss it out there in a public forum just because it makes you feel better is reprehensible. Equating casual observation for research is audacious. More precisely, it is recklessly audacious. You don't need to know anything about me to understand that such a characterisation is wholly appropriate. You just have to understand English. What prompted the word was your reckless audacity. Thinking that casual observations equate to research is offensive. It offends those scientists who work diligently and professionally to conduct their research. Do you think it is acceptable to demean their efforts in that way?

I find myself wondering why, when all of Semjase's 'evidence' is easily refuted - and has been, that this thread is still entitled to the relative honour of being in Speculations.

That's what people are objecting to. You are just throwing it out without the care and attention that the subject deserves. Elsewhere you have the audacity to describe these casual observations of events as research. So not only have you offended people who may have lost loved ones, you have offended science. I suspect you are a pretty decent person, intelligent, well meaning and inquisitive, but why not make the decision today to start using that intelligence. It won't be too painful.

Ths sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Nice one Chrispen. I thought I had tried that in my search. I pride myself on being able to find it if it's there, but I bombed on this occassion. Kudos to you for locating it and welcome to the forum.

I too was unable to locate a copy online despite trying several different approaches. A good library service should be able to find a copy for you. I recall Joly's calculations being cited in my course work back in the 60's, but I never read or saw the paper.

Joly, J. (1899). An estimate of the geological age of the earth. Scientific transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, New Series, 7(3). Reprinted in Annual report Smithsonian Institution, June 30, 1899, pp. 247–288.

Why do quacks always seem to duck the issue?