Ophiolite

As an approximation, in the roughly 27 hours since this thread was opened 30,000 children have died of preventable conditions. This makes it difficult for me to get unduly excited about the loss of a specific sub-group.Before you choose to call me heartless, may I ask what your position is on the 30,0000?

Here is an equation for you: Semantic content of your post above = 0 Please now properly address the point made by Klaynos that at least one of your equations fails dimensional analysis, or admit that you have no idea what dimensional analysis is, or why it is important in this context.

You don't think Dualism was a rather large mistake?

I suspect that the proposal would not work. I think the determining factor on the eruption/no eruption decision is not the presence of a pathway, but the volume of magma, its ditribution and the pressure it is under. Any pathway created by the technique would rapidly close up if these other conditions were not met - and they would only be met when the volcano was already perilously close to a 'conventional' eruption. I cannot demonstrate this point with maths or mdoesl, but intuitively such understanding as I have of vulcanicity leads me to that conclusion.

I found your post difficult to understand, so I have some questions and observations that may help you to help me. should you wish to do so. When you say you have grasped more hope for humanity, do you mean that you have become more hopeful, or you have generated more hope? the use of the active verb grasp creates ambiguity. How does an observational event differ from an ordinary event? How does a simple observational event differ froma complex one? Is the distinction important and if so how? Why do you think that desparate people will be more motivated to behave in rational cooperative ways than non-desparate people? Why do you find it sensible to trust the condition of society? What makes you feel that we can consider the diversity in global cultures insufficient to merit considering them distinct societies? What are the similarities between say, Peruvian subsistence farmers and Wall Street brokers that enable us to consider them part of a single society? Can you give examples of where major problems have been solved by just trusting to luck and expecting that things will sort themselves out? If there is no point in discussing this sort of thing, why are you discussing this sort of thing?

such an investigation has been carried out. What are your doubts or concerns in the matter?

The primary requirement within oil and gas work relating to palaeontology is for micropalaeontologists. These enable tight correlation of strata by identification of the species and variants within cuttings samples. The work is often farmed out to consultancy companies.

Doc.ToBe did not know that. I did not know that specifically before seeking an answer to their question. If you know this why are you asking the question?

semjase, your ability to draw faulty conclusions from misunderstood data is impressive. All your conclusions that I have seen are are faulty to the point of best being characterised as nonsense. Let's look at one itme as an example: It seems you are unaware that the alternating orientation of the geomagnatic field through time is a very well established fact. Alternating "magnetic stripes" on the sea floor were a key element in the development of plate tectonic theory. Contrary to your implication there is no correlation between pole reversal and enhanced volcanic activity. The direction of the rotation of the globe doubtless effects the magnetic poles, not the other way around. There is solid evidence that the magnetic orientation of the sun does not influence the magnetic orientation of the Earth.

No one is denying that polarity reversals occur. We are challenging your apparent assertion that these are associated with major disaster; that they occur rapidly and that they can presently be predicted to within a day (or even a century). What makes you adopt these strange beliefs? what have you found convincing in this fringe material that causes you to reject sound science?

Not after an emote like that.

Incorrect. Get a textbook that wasn't written half a century ago. Seriously. Irrelevant, except that individuals with a wider range of genes will likely be fitter in the evolutionary sense. In what way do you think it matters? You almost sound like you are saying, "But they wouldn't be pure. They would be contaminated with inferior genes." So what exactly do you mean?

I am astounded that this remark could come from a professional biologist. He asserts in the opening sentence that the children who did not survive to an age at which they could reproduce lacked the genetic protection against disease. Now we provide that through medicines and preventive actions. Cleary the genetic character of the population has changed dramatically, yet he asserts "Nothing is changing". Well, duh, please refer to the undergraduate notes you used to hand out to your students. Find the bit that defines evolution as the change of allele frequency in a population. Just astounding.

Just a thought, incomplete at present - what if you are dealing with a Power Law fluid?

No one is entirely proficient. Well informed persons may still make an error. That would not deserve and I would not award neg rep for that. If they rejected the correction without valid justification, or trivialised the significance of giving an incorrect answer that could deserve neg rep as this could fit the categories of deeply foolish or disgustingly self centred. No discussion is required in these instances before giving neg rep. You have created an example which is simply not relevant to the discussion. It is not about being right or wrong, but the methodology employed to acquire, assess and present those data has to be scientific. It is only in instances falling far short of this requirement that merit neg rep. Are you opposed, Anilkumar, to awarding neg rep in such cases?

I am getting tired of repeating this, but your statement is faulty. Until we have clearly identified and specified, in comprehensive detail, the steps by which life might arise it is impossible to meaningfully assess the odds for or against its occurence. Extrapolating from a sample size of one is foolish. The more I see suggestions to the contrary the more inclined I am to say it is downright dumb. I think I shall be able to resist the temptation for another five instances.

Trash can please. Inventive and creative nonsense would have the benefit of being entertaining. This is as entertaining as a painting the toe nails of a dead hippo.

The number of electrons that can fill a shell is limited. The first shell can hold no more than two electrons, so once we get to helium we have a full shell. The next element is sodium, with atomic number three. So it has three protons and three electrons. The third electron cannot go into the first shell which is full, so it goes into the next one. One electron in the outer shell, two in the inner shell. As atomic number increases we wind up with atomic number 10: two electrons in the inner shell and eight in the outer shell - this is neon. That shell is now full, so when we move to atomic number 11 the next electron must go into the next shell. That gives us the element sodium, which as you can see must therefore have three shells with 2 electrons in the inner shell, 8 in the next and one in the last. Make sense?

Well Tom welcome to the forum. Perhaps I should have put in a to indicate I was being lighthearted. I thought my opening words "I was amused" might have been enough. That said, for something as important as the claim you are making I would not find any media report to be sufficient. I would wish to see the peer reviewed academic study that demonstrated it.

As I think I pointed out in my previous post the correct technical term for random in this context is shit: shit things happen.

The reason I asked if you were disagreeing with me is that your lengthy posts #101 opened with a quote from one of my posts. However, having read your response several times I was left in the dark as to what you thought. The only glimmering of sense I got is that you think many/most/all in this thread speaking positively of science are doing so with blinkers. If that is what you are trying to say I don't have any comment for the others, but I shall state my own position. 1. There have been attacks on the methodology of science. These attacks have reflected a poor understanding of that methodology. I have attempted to correct them. 2. I do agree with you that the practice of science may differ from the how it is meant to work. But, and this is the key point, this is a short term failing. The demands of peer review and the requirement that everything be tested mean that poor ideas will be eventually overturned and better theories will be put in their place. You are distressed that in the process there may be many instances of scientists acting like humans. My view is "shit happens, deal with it". In the long term the methodology works despite the weaknesses of humans, therefore - back to point 1 - I defend the methodology. Edit: I just noted that your earlier post received 2 neg reps. I don't see why and I just wanted to make you aware I was neither of them.

Hello Wafflez: the title of this section is Homework Help, not Homework Done for You. If you will show some indication that you have made an effort, tell us what your thinking is so far, I am sure members will be happy to help you. I'll give you this clue - what determines the number of electrons an atom has? How might that relate to your question?

I was amused by these two quotes: Tom_sg is clearly proud of the quality of French education. I was initially inclined to take him at his word, until I read his later comment. I am very suspicious of any educational system whose students believe that youtube is viable source of economic data.

cofu, I think you are using a translation program. This makes your writing difficult to understand. Do you really mean that you believe the Earth "casually appeared in Solar system"? Верите ли вы, что Земля формируется где-то в другом месте, затем переехал в Солнечной системе?

I've visited this thread three times and each time I go away thinking, "The problem here is the respondents have some notion, conscious or unconscious, that in relation to this issue humans are rational." Is that making clarity of thinking difficult?