Ophiolite

I shall set aside the fact that a star's Tidal Habitable Zone really has no relevance for a G-type star like the sun (read the article). A star's Tidal Habitable Zone is created by the star itself, so how do you propose you can move a star outside its own zone? Let me make that clearer. If I move the star 5 AU in one direction its THZ has to move 5 AU in the same direction. There is simply no way the star can be moved outside its own zone.

I think - actually I know - that could go a long way to removing some of the problems you've encountered in the past. You are still going to have your ideas attacked, but there will be more inclination to try to explain things to you. Cheers

That aspect of the article is irrelevant. Let's focus on just one point at a time. How can a star move out of its own Tidal Habitable Zone, something you claim may occur.

Then I have not been clear. I did not insult your intellect in my first post, nor was my last post intended as an insult. I am now stating clearly that there was no intention to insult your intellect in my first post. I am sorry that you misinterpreted my intent. As the writer it is my responsibility to be clear. Obviously I failed to be so. However, I cannot apologise for something I did not do. I attempted to bring this out in my second post, which you have again interpreted as an insult, when it was meant to be two things: 1) A lighthearted riposte to reduce tension. 2) A genuine enquiry as to whether we do have any research out there which shows the correlation I spoke of. There is nothing I can do if you choose to be insulted by what you think I have said, other than to explain to you that you have misunderstood. By the by, your post I interpreted to implicitly agree with the OP and therefore my remarks included you. Are you telling me I misinterpreted your implicit content?

The expressions "I think", or "I don't think" are used by most people to indicate a high level of confidence in the assertion that follows. Examples: I think plate subduction rates have remained in broadly the same ranges as we observe today. I think gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud. I think the fact that Mendel's work was overlooked for many decades can be primarily attributed to the obscure journal he published his results in. I would never phrase these statements as, for example, "gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud." That allows for little disagreement. Inserting the "I think" introduces flexibility. It equates to "On the balance of the evidence and the thinking I have done on this subject I have reached the following provisional conclusion which I believe to be highly likely" If I was not sure about the statement it would be phrased like this. "Is it true that gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud." Therefore your posted statement "I don't think it's possible for something to have mass without electrons." came across as confident assertion with a high probability of truth.

I'm sorry if my point was not clear: here it is in plain English. "What is the source of your arrogance that leads you to propose radical ideas in science when you apparently lack even a grasp of a few fundamentals." Now you add a clarification to your intent and I offer a new point: If you are uncertain it would be better to state "As I understand it electrons need to be present for something to have mass. Would someone like to confirm that for me." As written you appear to be expressing an opinion which you hold confidently. The nuclei of all atoms have mass whether or not they are surrounded by electrons. Each neutron and proton in those nuclei has mass. I am bemused that you could be unaware of this. Do you have a mirror?

I am not aware of convincing research which shows a direct correlation between intellectual capacity and incidents of "mindless, agenda driven, knee jerk condemnation based upon ignorance, prejudice and a self-indulgent righteousness." However, if such research exists I would be interested to see it.

No. I disagree completely. The generation of stellar magnetic fields is different from that for planetary fields. Comparative studies of both may yield some interesting insights, but you cannot verify how one is generated by studying the other. Correct for the Earth and probably for most or all planetary fields. But this tells us nothing about the generation of the stellar field. Temperatures have been falling for billions of years, which has led to solidification and growth of the inner core. Relatively high temperature is maintained because of slow conduction and convection of heat to the surface and the ongoing generation of heat by radioactive decay, primarily in the mantle. You have quite misunderstood this article. It relates to planets that might be orbiting very close to red dwarfs. Such planets would be influenced by tidal flexure (comparable with Io around Jupiter) which could maintain internal temperatures. We can calculate the tidal stresses on the Earth (which come mainly from the moon) and they are irrelevant in terms of this mechanism. The Earth is too far away from the sun for this to be significant. This is gobbledegook. We've already established that a stars field is generated differently from a stellar field. But more to the point, how can a star move out of its own Tidal Habitable Zone, when it is the body responsible for generating that zone. So, not only do I disagree completely and absolutely, but I urge you to abandon this self-contradictory, illogical mind-fart at once.

I believe your statement makes even more sense if you eliminate all but the first three words.

Please note that I was addressing specifically the award of the prize to Europe and not any other awards in previous years. The thread title addresses the current award and that is all I wish to address within this thread. In that regard posters seem to me to be guilty of a logical fallacy. i.e. The Peace Prize has previously been awarded to undeserving recipients. Therefore all recipients are undeserving. I felt characterising this as knee jerk and agenda driven was less personal than calling it monumentally dumb.

OK. I'll switch to plan B. It's more aggressive, but it's shorter. Anilkumar, if you had a picogram of humility you would stop screwing up the forum with your delusional notions of truth.

I am confident you gentlemen are correct. After all why waste time exploring the reason for the award to the EU. It's so much easier to engage in a mindless, agenda driven, knee jerk condemnation based upon ignorance, prejudice and a self-indulgent righteousness.

No, you are the one who is not getting it. It was not an atomic explosion. There is no good reason to think it could have been an atomic explosion of any kind: natural, human induced or alien. You might as well say, "You guys are not getting it. Suppose it was caused by the friction generated by a fight between a giant armadillo and a canary, how could that have happened." Well, it couldn't and didn't.

I deliberately avoided that. As I understand it the matrix was first discovered, or at least implemented, by two Irish physicists working at Queen's in the 50's, William Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzwilliam. Rumours of their then unconventional personal relationship still colours a willingness to take the matrix out of the closet. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it basically relates to an early version of Catastrophe theory where variables grow in fits and starts.

Athena, your post #63 presents your views as if they were undeniable facts. It does so with aggression and implicit condemnation of the intellect or motives of anyone who dares to disagree with you. You pretend to be willing to debate the points, but really wish only to destroy any opposing arguments by weight of cherry picked or misinterpreted evidence. This approach is in my view an especially sinister and vile form of censorship by bullying, browbeating and authoritarian preaching. I retract an earlier remark of mine that we were singing from the same hymn sheet. I do not wish to inhabit the same choir, church, diocese or denomination with you.

I haven't read the entire discussion, but here is a provisional thought. I think you and Byrd are saying almost the same thing, but with a subtle difference that creates the impression of disagreement. Does the following sound plausible? Byrd is saying that we should not discard observations since these form part of the evidential base from which hypotheses are built and validated. While we may accord some observations more weight than others, all should be retained as raw data. You are saying that we should discard interpretations of observations that have been shown to be improbable or impossible by other, more substantial, observations from the evidential base. Thoughts?

Hi there. Welcome to the forum. It would probably have been better to post that in the Introduction section, but welcome anyway.

What are you not understanding? I'll do my best to explain, but I can't help you if you just ignore what I am telling you. Firstly, you say there were elevated radiation levels. I have explained to you that there are many places around the world with radiation levels that are unusual, high, above average, call it what you will. You have offered absolutely no evidence to suggest that the levels were dramatically above normal, therefore the radiation levels are likely not important to this situation. I now explain for the third time that if a comet or asteroid penetrates the atmosphere then explodes in the air - a mechanism that is well known and commonplace over geologic time - it generates very high temperatures. These temperatures are certainly high enough to fuse rock to glass. If the airburst is close to the ground this is exactly what would happen. There is nothing to explain here that is in any way unusual. What is it that you do not understand about that?

I second what Phi for All has said. I would be reluctant to conduct further discussion in private via pm unless there was some issue that could create danger for individuals. I cannot see how that would be the case here. Also relying exclusively on input from me is placing a great restriction on the potential quality of response/commentary/advice you might get.

I've already answered this. An air burst from an incoming bolide could generate temperatures comparable with a nuclear explosion. Natural radioactivity could account for the above normal radiation levels. It doesn't seem difficult to explain. You don't need to invoke an implausible mehcanism when a perfectly satisfactory one already exists.

As a parent, grandparent, educator, keen amateur scientist and inept piano player can you explain to me in what way pointing out errors of fact and logic in your posts and requesting explanations of your hypothesis constitute hounding? I find that offensive in the extreme to people who actually are hounded.

I'm not exactly clear what your first sentence means: His claim "You can't discard phenomena just because there is no scientific evidence for them." or "You can't discard phenomena because there is no scientific evidence to justify discarding the observations." Skepticism should always be the default postion. So your statement seems justified. Notice that I withhold an absolute confirmation because without knowing the full context I remain skeptical.

So during an interaction of two Phesrons is energy exchanged via a process of Schaffting within the Schafftarian field? I take it then, that in your view of the world there is a great deal of Schaffting going on? Is this Schaffting exclusively on the nano scale, or can one get macroscopic Schaffting? For example have you ever been Schaffted? Are all the members reading this being Schaffted at the moment? These seem to me to be important questions.

In most instances observations will come first. However, keep in mind that this is a cyclic process. An observation raises a question. The question leads either to other observations, or to a speculation. The speculation becomes a question. The questions spawns further observations. These change the character of the speculation and raise further questions. The questions become more formal and are investigated systematically. The speculation becomes a hypothesis. It is shared with others who do their best to destroy it. Question, observe, modify hypothesis. Repear until done. At some point one has many different kinds of observations, experimental data and theoretical underpinnings, supported by the work of many individuals and teams. Arguably one now has a theory.

Your prompy polite response deserved a second effort. Survey completed.