Ophiolite

Based upon your last post I recommend you get retested.

Except that the tone and content of their work suggests the exact opposite. I stand by my original thought that this is third rate research and fourth rate thinking.

c = 1/(eo Uo )½ Where c = the speed of light, eo is the electrical permittivity of the vacuum and Uo is the magnetic permeability of the vacuum. This is derived, I believe, from Maxwell's equations.

It seems to me that the OP's friend is equating fitness with efficiency. Thus an organism that is more efficient will make better use of its resources and be more likely to survive and procreate. If this is what he means he is correct, but by replacing fitness with efficiency he has merely obscured the basic principle.

Correct. But a consensus of informed scientific opinion is more likely to be correct than misininformed and misinterpreted opinion expressed by an individual. The volcanic activity did not end with an impact. Such extensive vulcanism is unusual, but certainly not unique. (The Siberian Traps, from 230 m.y.a. and the more recent, thogh smaller, Columbia Flood Basalts are obvious examples.) The odds of a major impact occuring during an extensive large scale eruption are probably around four or five to one. I am not speaking over millions of years. The vulcanism extended over many millions of years, but the impact and the resultant major extinction was a matter of a few years, or perhaps a decade or so. Well, the explanation works for both, but remind me of exactly how your 'sun particles' wipe out most plant life on the planet.

A review of the Galvani-Volta dispute could be illuminating.

We are moving towards a consensus that several species and genera were already environmentally stressed towards the end of the Cretaceous. This was exacerbated by the extensive volcanic activity that produced the Deccan Traps. The Chicxulub impact was the final nail in the coffin of many individuals and many species. You seem not to have understood the inevitable uncertainties in the dating process. That is why the recently determined precision of 11,000 years, which you dismissed as "not precise", is so important. 11,000 years in geological terms is instantaneous. You might want to look into the proliferation of ferns after the KT event and tell me how your unfounded 'sun particle' theory explains that.

You are not talking about a small shift. You are talking about tens of degrees. That would point the north pole towards, or near, an entirely different star. Your inability ot understand this very simple point renders your opinion valueless. You seem to have been working on these misconceptioons for thirty years. Don't you think it's time you woke up?

So you have not constructed this as a neural network? If not, then there is little point in trying to mimic memory processes on a system that does not function like a neural net.

So, Popcorn. You ask about memory, as if genuinely interested in the answer, then reveal that you "have a theory". What interests me is that you developed this theory without apparently having done even a rudimentary search of textbooks or research papers in order to understand current ideas on this topic. You just jumped to a concussion. And then you wonder why you wouldn't be entertained as a moderator.

If the axis has shifted, joeman, can you explain to me why the stars at night still appear to revolve around Polaris?

Since there are four previous posters in this thread I am not sure which both you are agreeing with. Nor am I any the clearer as to which corruption is being referred to. You think it is about improperly labelled meat products. Menageriemanor thinks it is about the cruelty we visit on the animals that we use for food. And there are other possibilities: beef imports to Indonesia that are rotten; Officials being bribed to forego import duties; lies about the Halal slaughter of the beef cattle. I would still welcome clarification from the OP.

Congratulations.

If you are correct then this would clearly be a very serious situation. Therefore it is your responsibility to convince the public at large and the membership here of the truth of your assertions. With that in mind please address each of these points. 1. If the Earth's orbit has been destabilised and the axis has changed by 26 degreees, why has this not been noticed by anyone? 2. By what mechanism does the weakening of the magnetic field - soemthing that has happened many times in Earth history - destabilise the Earth's orbit. 3. By what mechanism does a change in axial rotation rate induce a change in orbit? 4. What evidence do you have that the sun is getting nearer? If it is, why does the moon still manage to block out the sun during a solar eclipse? 5. Oil and natural gas are not formed in the core? What makes you think they are?

What do you think the video shows that constitutes evidence for the shooting down of the meteor? What do you mean by 'shooting down'? The meteor, apparently, was on a collision course with the Earth. It did collide. What did 'shooting it down' change about that? How could an object with the level of kinetic energy is possessed be 'shot down'? Please address each of these points.

And that is one of the interpretations.

Can you specify what you mean please. Your remarks may be readily grasped by someone immersed in Indonesian cultural and political life, but to outsiders there are several interpretations that can be placed on your assertions.

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam: "By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook." Of course I could simply be an ignorant, dogma ridden, close minded skeptic whose requests for evidence and logical argument are nothing more than a feeble attempt to stand in the way of progress and block the bursting of the next Newton or Galileo upon the world. I'll let you judge.

You seem to be confusing intellect, knowledge, motivation and paractical application, treating all as if they were a single entity. It is quite reasonable for kids to become more knowledgeable than their teachers - if they are smart enough and motivated enough to do it. Incorrect. The teacher uses reinforcement, not because they are in a position of authority, but because it works. I would be truly fascinated how you would go about encouraging learning in individuals without using such techniques. Further, you imply that reinforcement can only be used on persons below you in a heirarchy. Rubbish! I routinely use the techniques, with good effect on peers and superiors. Unfortunately puns on Leibniz are more difficult to integrate into the fabric of a conversation, or differentiate them from a general comment..

. This would imply that people think logically. Do oyu have any evidence to support this? As to an ideal of thinking process, my most effedtive work is achieved when I ignore, or outright reject non-contradiction.

See post 121.

I agree with ydoaPs's first post, but assuredly not his second. The word you are looking for is immaterial. I am confident you will disagree, but that would be a mistake.

You are likely mistaken. Pseudoscience attempts to fake the correct application of scientific principals. Science can sometimes be practiced badly. It's an important distinction.

I just wonder why people are obsessed with the speed of light, yet pay scant regard to the mass of the tau neutrino. Poor childhood diet?

Short term memory problems? You just said science was becoming like religion. Do you wish to detract that, or defend it?