Ophiolite

That's sounds quite aggresive. Is there entertaining history we could know about? I cannot think of a single speculations thread I have not learnt something in as a consequence of having to properly study or review issues in order to make meaningful posts. OK, so far this thread may be the exception, but I am an optimist.

That's a little unclear. Could you post the math for that please.

I presume you need some of us to distract the security guards while you grab the prize. Is that the collaboration you had in mind?

Water molecules tend to link together in loosely bound structures through hydrogen bonding. The number of molecules so linking tends to increase with decreasing temperature. The linked molecule form loose structures that take up more space than unbound molecules. At around 4 deg centigrade this trend 'overwhelms' the normal reduction in volume caused by lower temperature. Further reduction in temperature leads to expansion. Wikipedia likely has some good articles on this.

John are you replying to the opening post and stating that physicists are seeking a so-called theory of everything? Or, are you replying to the next post and implying that physicists are trying to stop such a theory being evolved?

I've addressed your speculation in the thread on the EM field, also in the Earth Science sub-forum. I've included a few references that demonstrate physically and theoretically that the differential rotation of inner core to the rest of the planet is at most a couple of degrees per year. Your hypothesis, like many in the past, is skewered by reality. Here is a link to that other thread.

Unfortunately your hypothesis is falsified by the facts. Seismic observations suggest a small differential in rotation rates between the outer and inner cores, but there is no evidence that the inner core is locked to the moon's orbit. The most generally accepted conclusion is that the differential in rotation rates is a prograde one. Initially this was thought to be a between 1–3° per year1 . More recent work suggests it is smaller, perhaps as little as 0.2° per year2,3. While planetary rotation plays a role in sustaining the field it is the convection in the outer core that provides the source of the field4. Your suggestions, while imaginative, are unfortunately wrong. 1. Aurnou, J.M. et al "Mechanics of Inner Core Super Rotation" Geophysical Research Letters,, Vol. 23, No. 23, P. 3401, 1996 2. Tromp, J. "Inner-Core Anisotropy and Rotation" Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 29: 47-69 2001 3 " Zhang, J. et al "Inner Core Differential Motion Confirmed by Earthquake Waveform Doublets" Science 309, 1357 2005 Link 4 G.A. Glatzmaier and P.H. Roberts, "A three-dimensional convective dynamo solution with rotating and finitely conducting inner core and mantle," Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 91, 63-75 1995.

This isn't entirely true. The 'evidence' for this appeared on the History channel and there have been a lot of aliens on the history channel. Ancient Aliens

Illusio - resitance is fundamental to the scientific method. When a researcher conceives of an idea it is their duty to rigorously attack their own idea, to probe it for weaknesses. If it passes muster they may either run some experiments, or explore the idea with colleagues. Again the effort is to probe and test and resist. Then attempts to publish and the barrage of attack from referees and editors. And once it is published the full weight of others in the field is released. Resitance? If you want to call it that, but most would call it the scientific method.......and it is afar cry from the topic of this thread, which is that scientists are afraid to change paradigms.

I am not disputing the role of Islamic and Arabic culture in preserving classical knowledge and building on it. I am denying there is any meaningful scientific knowledge within the Koran.

Does this mean he has hijacked his own thread? Is that a first? I suspect not. I'm still reeling from the fact that after several comments relating to the switch to the plate tectonic paradigm he stated that he didn't know enough about the topic to comment on it. It didn't do a lot for his credibility in my mind, but I enjoyed it.

Cheap tactics are the mark of a defeated argument - yours. End of conversation.

I have pointed out that you do the following: 1. Insist, without room for doubt, that every one of your views is correct. 2. Accuse those of differing views of such things as lack of integrity, dishonesty, distaste for freedom. 3. Present interpretations of history that you assert are facts. 4. Demand that we accept these 'facts'. There are other behaviours, but those are the principle ones. In my experience only two conditions account for such behaviour: gross stupidity and hatred. Your posts are well written and intelligently structured, so I rule out stupidity and am left with hate. If you feel there is another motive, not for arguing your case - we all get that - but for the related behaviours noted above I am certainly willing to listen to an explanation. This appears to be an attempt at that alternative explanation. You seem to be arguing that virtue accords one with the strength and confidence of being right. You then go on to try to demonstrate how virtuous you are. Athena, what you call virtuous strength appears to me like arrogant self righteousness. I always entertain the possibility I may be wrong. You, apparently, don't suffer from that weakness. You say you attempt to follow these three rules. Here would be my three equivalents: 1. I accord respect from the outset, until someone demonstrates they are not worthy of that respect. Then I give them a second chance. And a third. 2. I will not knowingly damage the dignity of others. But if they wish to self harm and call it noble that's their choice. (It's part of freedom, you know.) 3. I'm reasonably sure Hitler felt his integrity was intact up until the end, so I don't set much store my self identified integrity. You might argue that I have qualified integrity with the words self-identified. You might argue that we can determine actions that reflect integrity via guidance from others. However, this does not seem to apply to you, since - as noted - you have refused to listen to anything anyone has said about your own integrity in this thread. Your indulgent self-righteouness, determination to ignore others who act with integrity and conviction, these things do not speak of love. You may love democracy and human rights. You really don't seem to keen on people.

From the abstract: So the argument is that we can demonstrate there is no need for fine tuning by removing "an entire fundamental force" as long as we then fine tune the Standard Model and cosmological parameters. ydoaPs, I'm disappointed in you.

Can you explain why not a single muslim pointed these about before orthodox science discovered them? It could have encouraged many more converts.

Then why have you so far failed to provide any links that detail the evidence that you keep asserting exists. (And that are not associated with discredited nutters.)

So why are you presuming to comment on it? Please identify which sentence, phrase, post or paragraph of mines implies that I think this is the case. I am simply contradicting, with examples, your ineffectual suggestion that scientists are afraid of paradigm changes. Your claim is that in today's world science is afraid of paradigm changes. I am sure there are some historical instances of such resistance. Perhaps you can bring some Victorian examples to the table. I'm not sure what relevance they would have to discussing the attitudes of today's scientists. You seriously do not want to be making an ignorant remark like that to a geologist. All scientists have the opportunity to read practically any published peer reviewed journal. They do not have the opportunity to read all of them. Focusing on those which relate to their speciality is not resisting a paeadigm shift.

I apologise. I shall try not to be so subtle in future. Each of my posts is intended as a direct personal slur on your ludicrous position and lack of reading comprehension. Engage your brain and read the words as previously posted. We are and have been using them continuously since their introduction over half a century ago. Their role is that of a deterrent. They have been 100% successful in that role. Their very existence constitutes their use. Fortunately the rulers of the Sovier Union (whom you implied were dumb) were smart enough to understand that was their use and reacted accordingly, by not acting. What does it mean when the dumb leaders (your implicit claim) of the USSR are smarter than you? Still it gives you the intellectual resources to come up with this beauty: When everyone has one they are no longer a deterrent.

Don't talk crap. Provide an example of the plate tectonic revolution being deliberately ignored. Ignoring something because it is not on ones horizon, does not impact ones current specialist area of research, is not resistance. Resistance is deliberate refusal to consider information. I gave you three examples of real geologists who initially ignored the coming plate tectonic revolution because it did not yet impinge on their speciality. To describe this as resistance is ludicrous. You do not have a leg to stand on here. I have demonstrated with three examples that your hypothesis is unfounded. End of story. Either accept this or go indulge your fantasy elsewhere.

Read my words. There was little or no resistance to the development of plate tectonics. It took barely fifteen years. It was rightly described as a revolution, not because of massive fights between protagonists, but because it occured so rapidly.

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you. You attack good sense. You attack the scientific method. You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer. You attack established science with unfounded assertions. You attack logic with waffle. You offend science, scientists and this forum. I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset. I complimented you on your passion. Yet you arrogantly disregarded this advice and continued with your campaign of nonsense. I'm done with you.

It would be interesting, but it wouldn't change anything. If we consider plate tectonics some researchers were intrigued from the outset, most simply ignored the occassional paper on the topic because it was not relevant to their work. How was plate tectonics, at that point going to impact on a researcher who was interested in sexual dimorphism in Jurassic ammonites? How could it influence the thinking of a sedimentologist who was interested in better implementing the Huttonian principle when interpreting Devonian sandstones? Would plate tectonics aid the palaeontologist who saught better discrimination of Carboniferous subdivisions on a global basis? (All, by the way, real personal stories.) The inherent resistance you think may have been there was minimal. Of course there were hold outs like Carey who pursued an expanding Earth hypothesis - one that had always been well down the league of plausible theories for orogenesis. But as the evidence not only mounted, but became readily visible to all, researchers began to see how the concept could be relevant to their field. Faced with overwhelming evidence, in the words of the Borg, resistance was futile.

Mike, at the outset I said this: It strikes me that the artificial classifcation of science into various sub-categories is an important component of the problem. Therefore I would vigorously oppose any proposal to seek solutions primarily within anyone artificially defined sphere of science. You were inclined to agree: Yes I am inclined to agree , that rather than leaving things to one scientific discipline , that a multi-discipline approach to dealing with our future development of the world is really a good idea. It seems the inclination left you almost at once, since you continue to promote the notion that geology should take pride of place in our bid to be good householders of the planet. At the moment one of our major problems is global warming, so shouldn't climatology be at the top of your list? Or, since we are arguably taking part in major extinction event, what about biology? Alternatively, given the fact that it is humans that are screwing things up don't we need to focus on psychology or sociology or political science? Mike, I know you mean well, but I think your argument is not just simplistic, but dangerous. Now, a secondary point. You say that: "Also perhaps television program makers should be given incentives to produce more programs on Easily understood and interesting Earth workings subjects within the area of Geology and many-science subjects." Move to the UK and watch the BBC. Problem solved.

Clearly you inhabit an entirely different world to me. When I began my university course in the 1960s, according to the texbooks the Earth's continents were fixed. True, there was a hint of a wobble here and there - Holmes in Principles of Physical Geology, a page in de Sitter's Structural Geology - but little else. When I graduated in 1970 the plate tectonic revolution was already over in the pages of the refereed journals. At the start of the century, overwhelmed by mutation and Mendelian genetics, Darwinism was on its knees. Forty years later the Modern Synthesis had blended the two, almost seamlessly. Yet such were the continued revelations of how evolution works that many current researchers want to give the whole process a new name and claim it is a new paradigm. (Semantics!) It took less than ten years from the collection of moon rocks by the Apollo astronauts to general acceptance that the moon formed following a collision of a Mars sized planet with the proto-Earth. Science and scientists welcome paradigms changes. They make life more interesting. They validate the reason the scientists became scientists in the first place. The only people who seem to object are those people who come to the party with an idea, but no evidence.

The difficulty lies in isotope ratios and that difficulty is there for every proposed origin for water. For example virgin mantle ratios do not match any sampled meteorite composition, suggesting bulk earth did not form from CI chondrites as generally assumed. Neon ratios are wrong for cometary origins, if comet composition is as sampled thus far. Early water, as Levy points out, is clearly indicated by the zircon studies, yet the Late Heavy Bombarment is very real. This is a fascinating issue on which it is still to early to form a comfortable conclusion, even though almost every month brings a team of researchers almost doing exactly that.