Ophiolite

You may believe yourself to be creative. All I see is undisciplined mind farts. All the great thinkers have combined imagination with critical thinking. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate you have a horse in either race.

The impact pretty well volatalised eveything that went into orbit. Anything falling back to earth, fell back essentially instantaneously. Abiogenesis on Earth has certainly not been proven to be possible. Panspermia neatly answers the question of why life appeared so soon on the planet, yet it took another 2 1/3 billion years to evolve metazoans, a much simpler step than the one from non-life to life.

If this is so, why are some prepubescent children deeply troubled? What?!? Are you using "senses" as a euphimism for sexual awakening? That is the only explanation I can imagine. If you mean this literally it is simply wrong. Please provide (several) citations to justify this incorrect statement. I assume you meant veil, but even with that correction this makes no sense. Intimacy involves the removal of the figurative veil and thus there is no veil of intimacy. That appears to be a non-sequitur.

The Big Bang was not a blast, nor an explosion. You are imagining a catchy analogy is an accurate scientific description. It isn't. There is no centre to the "explosion". There is no evidence that the universe is revolving. There is no evidence of a "central" black hole. Current evidence suggests the expansion will not reverse.

Volatile elements, including water, were largely lost from the ejected material from which the moon was formed. This is natural and expected. A small proportion of the water on the Earth is likely derived from dehydration of the mantle. Unlike the water in the ejected material that formed the moon, depth of burial and gravity kept that mantle water available. The bulk of the water on the earth is derived, as you noted, from asteroids, or comets, or both. The moon and the Earth would have received similar amounts, in proportion to their size. The lower gravitational attraction of the moon, however, meant that its water was lost to space. Rather than calling the impact theory into question, the absence of any significant volume of water on the moon is one of the facts that led to and support that theory.

You have provided a considerable amount of detail. Unfortunately, the number and density of the trees prevent me from figuring out whether I am in a forest, a lumberyard, or a furniture store. This is largely due, I am sure, to my own limited experience in the fields you have touched on. A concise summary of your central point would be useful, not only to me, but perhaps to others also.

Yes, as I noted I broadly agree. If gorillas and cattle and tree shrews could discuss the matter I think they might agree with the OP that we are not animals, but insist we be classified as parasites.

Really? You appear to be suggesting that not only does the gravitational pull of an object fall of with the cube of the distance, but that at some point it simply disappears completely. I repeat a point-of-information: I am crap at physics, but your apparent assertion here just seems to be wrong. And since the only thing required to assess the "reach" of a black hole is its mass, then I think you will find it has been calculated many times.

Mike, I am struck by the thought that you are, with great inventiveness and imagination, seeking to answer questions in much the way the Greek philosophers did. They had some remarkable insights, but got a great deal wrong. Now, armed only with that imagination and a scattering of pop-science ideas, you are trying to offer solutions to problems that no longer exist. Science has already found the answers. It is frustrating to watch all this, even painful. Would it not make sense to improve your foundations, before you try to create soaring skyscrapers?

Ed, you have inherited a +1 which I did not intend to give. I was going for the Quote button. . However, I'm sure I've failed to vote on posts of yours that did deserve it, so have that one on me. Since the comparison in this thread is with animals, I presume you mean we are the dominant animal species on the planet. Given that rats are members of a number of species I shall reluctantly give you that. If you meant dominant species I there are a host of microbial species that would disagree with you. Indeed I am host to a number of such species.

I should have tracked the number of times on many forums I have felt constrained to say that I know almost no physics, but I damn well no bullshit when I see it. Tom, you have a bunch of people giving you excellent advice, showing you your errors and trying to guide you. However, in your arrogance, or stupidity (you decide which) you ignore it all and sail on with even more nonsense. Please stop it. Just because you were also a lifeguard is no reason for me to give you an easy time. Your posting content does not merit that.

Frankly, it would be a great improvement if you were to use proper English. You know, the kind that involves more than juxtaposing a range of words that relate to important concepts in such a way that, to the inexperienced eye, they seem to convey something profound. You may be a knock down, totally decent guy who is kind to small children and animals, and loves his grandma, but boy you don't half post a bunch of meaningless gibberish. I repeat my advice - get a proper education.

An assumption of mine is that you would be better off if you were to avoid wild-assed speculations and get a proper education. The difference between these two assumptions is that there is evidence to support mine. (Membership and Lurkers: if you have not read the Voynitch manuscript thread you will not be aware the justification of my rather curt response to Tom.)

The last option is by far the most likely and what this thread is about: could the internal heat of the planet, derived from the kinetic energy of construction and radioactivity, possibly supplemented by tidal heating if it has a moon, be sufficient to provide an environment suitable for life.

A couple of questions: What is the current greatest depth (not length) of tunnel that has been achieved with the present generation of tunneling machines? Would you explain what you mean by "For injecting the water in the hot rocks there is no water pump necessary, because the tunnel brings the low air pressure to the rocks below. There is building up a low-pressure zone in the rocks surrounding the tunnel or shaft." If the tunnel contains low pressure and the rocks, high pressure the flow will be in the opposite direction to the one you desire.The only way the a low-pressure can "build up" in the rocks, is by the escape of fluid from them. Have you done a cost estimate of such a project and contrasted it with the expected power generation and value? Is the tunnel lined, and if so how, or are you relying upon the natural strength of the native rock?

I am guessing English is your second language, so your question is not entirely clear. This is how I understand it: You wish to explore the way in publishers interact with each other indirectly. In other words you are not concerned with formal agreements that may exist between publishers, but rather the way their actions are influenced by the responses in the market. As an example you say you might consider the extent to which publishers compete or collaborate with each other, based upon an examination of the work of their authors. Do I have that more or less right? It seems rather vague. That probably reflects my understanding.

Excellent summary.

Tom, please sit down, if you are not already sitting and ****ing pay attention. YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED YOUR METHOD. No matter how much you may believe you have done so, you have not. Your method is obscure to us. Your attempts to explain it have obfuscated, not clarified. You need to step through the process step by step, defining every term along the way with maximum precision. If you are unable to do this there are two obvious explanations: 1. You lack the intellect to do so, in which case it is unlikely you have been able to do anything meaningful with the manuscript and you can be safely ignored. 2. You are deliberately trolling in which case you can be safely ignored. Therefore, if you have any interest in promoting your hypothesis you need to explain it clearly and simply and you need to do so now. If you can't be bothered,then neither can I.

Higher intelligence than......?

Tom, thank you for making the effort to explain your method.I believe it was a sincere attempt. Strange's questions, however, demonstrate how it fails totally to constitute an explanation. Frankly I find it ludicrous and a little sad that you think it is a viable explanation. Perhaps you are too close to the problem. I don't know, but at present it remains nonsense.

Exactly the point I wished to make. While we recognise that Neanderthals were different from modern humans the differences are not sufficient to argue against the possession of skills such as those I suggested. We cannot know, since those skills leave no record of any kind. While we may construct an argument that suggests it is unlikely, it cannot be ruled out.

No, you hold on. You made several other statements which Strange either refuted or questioned you on. These are clearly laid out in post #5. Will you please answer and address these now. Alternatively you can retract each of them, en masse, or individually. Steve, no one here is out to give you a hard time, but this is a science forum and speculations and hypotheses will be properly subject to close scrutiny. You have made statements that conflict with many observations and with current theory. It behooves you to address questions and refutations made in relation to those statements. It is your statements that are being attacked, not you.

And you continue to look at this from the point of view of humans. Your argument is that humans have characteristics that are absent or poorly developed in other animals and this males us special. Because we are special we should be considered separate for them. You entirely miss the point that the same argument can be made - and I have made it in relation to bats - about every other animal that would justify them being considered special and therefore separate from other animals. Look here is the argument again: Bats have superior echo location location to other animals. Humans may know more about the world than any other animal, but they are not even comparable when it comes to echolocation - no animal can do it as well as bats. That's the same argument you are using for separating humans from animals, but it works just as well to separate bats from animals.

So you reject the possibility that they engaged in complex story telling, choral singing and dance to an equivalent level of the preservable cave paintings. What is your justification for that rejection?

No.1 Note: 1. While this response lacks detailed information, I would argue that its brevity and focus are preferable to another Mike Smith Cosmos ramble. (Sorry Mike.)