Ophiolite

Surely you are aware that if you send money to the Admin team they ignore flagrant breaches of the rules. I can tell you that their rates are very reasonable compared with other forums. For a slightly larger sum you can get them to victimise a designated individual. It really is the best system that money can buy.

Yes. 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. You seem to be under the impression that they are meant to be actually detonated. I've already indicated I believe that to be a singularily ill informed viewpoint. I haven't been invited to participate directly in that decision. I've simply had the opportunity to participate in the decision to continue using them as we have successfully for half a century. I'm quite happy with the opportunity that was afforded me in this regard. I'm sorry I haven't had the same opportunity in relation to the French deterrent. It shames me to admit it, but while Britain used to lead the world in all kinds of ways, when it comes to dumb leaders we simply can't compete with the major players in the field. I think it is a timely reminder that a continent once racked by war, where several millions were killed in major conflicts in the first half of last century has reached a point where the major points of conflicts are resolved by diplomacy or at worst shouting matches. I have no idea what other European citizens think, as I am currently in the USA for a couple of weeks.

And this time I hope I can stick to my resolve of not feeding the troll. Thanks John for a masterful summary. In fairness to Equis I don't think his dumb act is deliberate.

Like Phi for All I am astounded by this comment. It is true that in very many species sex is used solely as a means to procreation, but there are still a significant number of whom this is not true. (I wonder in passing if they are mainly comparatively close relatives of ours.) What you have not considered is that evolution repeatedly makes use of existing structures for a new purpose. Most examples are of physical structires put to new uses, but it can be - as in this instance - behaviours also.

An effective strategy for minimising the risk of nuclear war by making the consequences of such a war blindingly obvious to even the dumbest leader. Was it the most effective possible strategy? I have no idea, but I do know that it worked. When you ask me a simple question and not a loaded one, I shall be happy to answer.

What? Can you seriously not read? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. You demonstrate in post after post that your reading comprehension is flawed.) Here is what John said: John is very clear that he is discussing the Hiroshima bombing, not the alleged event you have started the thread about. Even if you had failed to make the connection between "the poor souls who died at Hiroshima, the mention of "an atom bomb" and the phrase "of course the bomb.....", in his next clause he details how much uranium it contained, so that it is totally obvious he is not talking about your event. This typifies your repeated inability to understand anything you have been told in multiple posts. John explicitly told you that a) skeletons tend to preferentially absorb uranium from the environment b) most victims of a nuclear attack do not die of radiation, nor do their bodies display signs of elevated radiation levels c) therefore if the skeletons found at the site of the event you are interested in do show elevated radiation levels that's almost certainly not due to a nuclear explosion. The bulk of this thread is a string of posts in which we have attempted to help you understand what has been written. When are you going to start making an effort in this direction?

I find your posts so filled with hate, with self righteous indignity and not a trace of humility that I have no wish whatsoever to have any further dialogue with you. Indeed dialogue with you is impossible. You insist upon an acidic, destructive monologue while claiming to be arguing for the betterment of society. It won't wash. Please do not direct any more of your posts towards me. Thank you.

If you had a simplistic, atavistic, agenda driven perception of the part played by NATO in helping to aovid nuclear war in the last half century and to bring stability to Europe then you might see such a similarity. However, if one takes a considered, thoughtful, analytical view of the matter then it wouldn't be possible to arrive at such a stupid conclusion. I don't give a flying conjugal union what anyone thinks about my country, since my identity as an individual is not irredeemably linked to it.

Earlier I said it was the responsibility of the writer to make himself understood, but I do expect at least some effort on the part of the reader. Which part of this did you not understand? No country within the EU deserves the peace prize. The EU itself deserves the peace prize. It is the unified whole acting as a unit that merits that prize The existence of NATO has certainly played a major role in ensuring the peace within Europe which is part of the rationale for awarding the prize. Therefore the EU deserves the prize in part because of the existence and actions of NATO. Now will you answer a question. Why are you so obssessed about 'my country' and how I view it. I am a human. I live in the world. Despite their many weaknesses I have great admiration for the human capacity for cooperation, long term thinking and discovery. I happen to have a particular association with one part of the world, Europe. But I have lived and worked in six of the world's capital cities (only one of them European), visited more than fifty of them and have friends of more than a score of nationalities. Your obsession with 'my country' strikes me as parochial.

No country within the EU deserves the peace prize. The EU itself deserves the peace prize. It is the unified whole acting as a unit that merits that prize. I see no value in segmenting it. Next you might well ask me if specific parties within particular countries deserve a share in the prize and then specific citizens. Since it seems important to you, thought wholly irrelevant to me, the country in which I currently reside and whose passport I carry is in the EU and NATO and the WHO and UN and G8 and UNESCO and the World Bank etc, etc, etc.

I'm not on anyone's side. I am interested in accuracy of communication and observation.

I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that, although that was very close to your position in the OP. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU was because it had "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". You're opening post made a close tie between the EU and NATO, based on the number of coountries which are part of both organisations. The award of the prize to the EU had nothing to do with NATO. NATO arguably was a due the prize earlier for helping resolve the Balkan conflict. These two points are independent.

Buncha, T.E. et al "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago" PNAS July 10, 2012 vol. 109 Abstract It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and other proxies across several continents, and triggered the Younger Dryas cooling episode 12,900 years ago. Although many independent groups have confirmed the impact evidence, the hypothesis remains controversial because some groups have failed to do so. We examined sediment sequences from 18 dated Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) sites across three continents (North America, Europe, and Asia), spanning 12,000 km around nearly one-third of the planet. All sites display abundant microspherules in the YDB with none or few above and below. In addition, three sites (Abu Hureyra, Syria; Melrose, Pennsylvania; and Blackville, South Carolina) display vesicular, high-temperature, siliceous scoria-like objects, or SLOs, that match the spherules geochemically. We compared YDB objects with melt products from a known cosmic impact (Meteor Crater, Arizona) and from the 1945 Trinity nuclear airburst in Socorro, New Mexico, and found that all of these high-energy events produced material that is geochemically and morphologically comparable, including: (i) high-temperature, rapidly quenched microspherules and SLOs; (ii) corundum, mullite, and suessite (Fe3Si), a rare meteoritic mineral that forms under high temperatures; (iii) melted SiO2 glass, or lechatelierite, with flow textures (or schlieren) that form at > 2,200 °C; and (iv) particles with features indicative of high-energy interparticle collisions. These results are inconsistent with anthropogenic, volcanic, authigenic, and cosmic materials, yet consistent with cosmic ejecta, supporting the hypothesis of extraterrestrial airbursts/impacts 12,900 years ago. The wide geographic distribution of SLOs is consistent with multiple impactors.

Your speculation completely ignores the vast body of evidence that demonstrates a great range of times for orogenesis. This alone falsifies the idea. May I ask a personal question? Why are you abusing your own intellect to concoct ridiculous explanations that fail in almost every way? Would it not be more productive to put that energy and effort into properly understanding current theory, then perhaps contributing to its improvement?

NATO's reluctant, but eventually successful role in halting the Balkan conflict in itself deserved the peace prize a decade ago. You seem to fail to understand that the function of a modern army is not to wage war, but to preven them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=on+the+shoulders+of+giants&field-author=hawking&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&field-p_n_condition-type=&field-feature_browse-bin=2656022011&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=42&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12

Notexceling, you may be right. You have demonstrated that the number of logical fallacies can be directly proportional to the number of lines of text and you did that in 1 post.

This (I hope) will be my last post to you. Initially I thought you were just an enthusiastic person who in their enthusiasm was allowing themselves to be blinded to the facts. After your last remarkable, truly remarkable, post I see I was mistaken and I now understand why efforts to communicate with you failed. The links were either about points not in dispute (e.g. Trinitite) or were from sites whose reputation for rigorous review of evidence is close to zero. Despite repeated requests you have provided not a single primary source to substantiate the 'facts' which you are asking us to comment on. The History Channel is an entertainment channel. Their objective is bums on seats. They often present information in the most intriguing, mysterious way to entice and interest their audience. I watch and enjoy many programs on the channel, but I certainly look for independent verification of any 'facts' they raise that I am interested in. I hold an honours degree in geology from a top university. More to the point one of my responsibilities is to teach critical thinking and scepticism to engineers and scientists. So yes, I am qualified to determine the credibility of sources and yours stink. Irrelevant. The body of work produced by Icke clearly demonstrates nothing he says should be given any weight at all. And Icke has no frigging evidence and you have no frigging evidence. I will say this for Icke, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you. These were the two straws. I will not waste any more time debating with a gullible cipher. Newton was never the laughing stock of the scientific community. After he graduated with his Bachelor's degree he was certainly unknown. Two years of independent study during the closure of Oxford by plague led to brilliant insights and two years later he was appointed mathematics professor. Where is the laughing stock there? This addled notion seems to come from the same sort of place you acquire your other bizarre ideas. And here is wikipedia on Einstein's high school exams taken at the age of 17. In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades (including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6

You don't. Einstein built on significant work done by others who had built their work on others and so on. As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

So far you have failed to provide any acceptable evidence at all. You make claims and assertions without providing a single shred of peer reviewed research to support those assertions. You have been asked repeatedly to provide such evidence, yet all you do is repeat the assertions as if they were true. Science does not work that way. For your information Icke believes the world is ruled by lizard people, amongst whom is Queen Elizabeth. His support of any hypothesis is a pretty good indicator it is bogus. All you have to do convince us this is worth looking at further is provide some solid evidence.

Firstly, John Cuthber precisely expresses my own view in post #25. Thank you John. Equis, you say this in one post: Then you say this: Please make up your frigging mind! And please, do you have any decent citations? What you have offered is either irrelevant (I've pointed out that glass could be formed by means other than nuclear explosion) or from lightweight sites. Edit: I've just noticed that the content of the second site you linked to is 50% an extract from a book by David Icke! We have been spending our time discussing an event based upon the words of David Icke. Ridiculous! Please start treating this issue seriously. At present you are setting yourself up to be a laughing stock.

Excellent. Communication on internet forums is full of misunderstandings and misreadings. Thank you for clarifying your position. The implications certainly were derived in my mind, but based upon what you wrote. I accept responsibility when people misread what I have written. I'm sorry you don't see the value in such an approach. Basically you are telling me you feel alienated and insulted even although I have told you no insult was intended. It seems you want to be offended. Let me just add if I wished to insult you then you would be in absolutely no doubt that an insult had been delivered. I have no wish to insult you. I didn't insult you. You misinterpreted what I wrote - please, get over it. That's fine. No discussion from you, but naturally I reserve the right to comment. I really do find it puzzling that you choose to be insulted even although no intention to insult existed. That's weird behaviour. But, each to their own. Take care.

You continue to miss the point that the THZ is generated by the star and therefore always moves with the star. I ask that you now address this point specifically and properly. I also request that you cease characterising my rational and relevant questions as nonsense. At present your proposal and your reactions to my questions are marking you as either exceedingly foolish or exceedingly ignorant. In my view such ignorance or stupidity has no place in this forum. Fail to start providing sensible responses to my reasonable questions and I shall seek to have you permanently banned.

He means that I rated the probability of a bolide impact airburst being very high and the probability of a naturally induced nuclear explosion being very low. Apparently this objective assessments of the facts as currently available was "despicably childish". If so I should like 14, 827 other such instances to be taken into account.

I have downgraded your explanation because so far you have provided zero evidence to support your assertion. Please now list, with appropriate citations, the precise evidence you believe exists for a nuclear explosion. I am not going into denial, because so far you have provided nothing to deny. Produce this evidence, not as word of mouth, third hand, suspect web-site evidence, but properly documented evidence - you know, the kind that would be appropriate and expected on a science forum.