Ophiolite

I asked at the outset that you not take offence at what was sincerely offered with the intention of helping you get your ideas across more effectively. Your writing style. It lacks clarity. It is verbose. It is structurally complex, yet that structure does not contribute to getting your point across. All of that gives the appearance that you believe the importance of what you are saying can be enhanced by complexity. That is how you come across to me and, I suspect, to others. I could just sit quitely by and decide you are a dickhead and place you on ignore. I don't think you are a dickhead and simply wished to suggest that change in your writing style might help you presnet your arguments more convincingly. If you wish to consider this advice then reject it, that's fine with me. If you decide to ignore it completely, that's also your choice - but it seems rather foolish. I have no idea how you made such deduction, but it is not relevant. I'm on a technical forum because technical matters interest me and the clear communication of technical matters interests me. I found your thoughts provisionally interesting, but was unable to fully engage with them for the reasons noted. Now if you cannot take constructive criticism I might be tempted to ask you, what are you doing on a technical forum.

No. He conceived the idea in 1838, but there was no publication. A paper outlining the concept was read at the Royal Society in 1858 along with one from Wallace whose independent proposal of the concept prompted Darwin to go public. The following year an expanded version of his theory was published: On the Origin of Species. The current definition, I think, comes from the period when the Modern Synthesis was being developed. I suspect Dhobzansky rather than Mayr, but that's by the by. Why not? Perfectly possible. But not an ambigious, catch-all, ineffective, ill-constrained definition of the type porposed by too-open-minded.

Again, you are using the word evolve in different ways in the same post. This is liable to confuse and introduce ambiguities. It is not a good idea. Individuals change over time, but those changes are not heritable. Only mutations in the germ cells (sperm and ova) are heritable. Changes in the individual do not affect the germ cells. Rocks certainly evolve, but in a quite different way from biological evolution or individual evolution. Drawing the terms together creates more confusion thant clarity. At the end the only thing it does is provide a less elegant way of saying "things change".

Excuse me Gamma, I'm slowing down mentally in my old age. Is your question equivalent to this one: "Is there significant scientific value to be gained by drilling or coring into the crusts of the terrestrial planets and larger satellites?" If that is your question then the answer is a resounding yes. The difficulty would be in implementing the process. To conduct equivalent operations on the Earth requires the use of drilling rigs costing up to $500,000 a day and requireing crews of one hundred or more. It is not clear to me how such processes could be conducted economically on a remote planet. Suggestions?

dale, the plasma universe has nothing to do with plasma fusion. But it seems my question was misdirected: you are not a proponent of the plasma universe. That, in my book is a good thing. I'm pleased we got that cleared up. Now, I'd like to ask you a favour. Please don't take offence. Could you try to simplify your writing style? As it stands it truly agonising to read. Indeed, after several attempts I have been unable to finish post 3 and 5 because of the turgid, affected stlye. Keepi t simple man! Please.

But we were not discussing the interaction of stars and neutrinos, but of planets and neutrinos. Since the sun is the largest source of neutrinos striking the Earth then it should, according to your hypothesis, be repelled by it. Clearly this does not happen. This - and three centuries of observation, experiment and theorising - suggests you are wrong.

Is this going to morph into a plasma universe thread?

It should be noted that the occassional use of forelimbs to aid locolotion does not prevent one being classified as a biped. If it did then drunks could not be considered to be bipeds.

I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've seen this particular notion presented on a science forum. It is commonplace thought among those who are starting out on the fascinating road of learning about science. Analogies are uesful to help us grasp difficult subjects, but it is misleading to take them to far. While there are similarities between, for example, an atom and a solar system, there are far more things that are different. The analogy breaks down and, regretfully, your idea fails. But keep thinking and keep imagining. Just make sure you test each new idea against reality.

My regret is that by the time we are deep into the worst effects of global warming I shall be dead and I shall not be able to say to JohnB: "You bastard, you contributed to this situation." so perhaps the forum moderators will permit me to say it now instead.

But not by scientists. Do you have any evidence that his theories were ridiculed, rejected or ignored by fellow scientists? Not correct. Wegner published his original paper in 1912. Arthur Holmes, one of the foremost geologists of his generation, supported the concept and published such support in 1926 or 1927. While the majority of geophysicists rejected the concept this wa primarily because of the absence of a viable mechanism. Indeed, Wegner's theory, as detailed, has been disproven through the introduction of plate tectonics. The two theories have major differences. Strict Wegnerian continental drift has been rejected because it does not occur.

Of the original Mercury Seven only Glenn and Carpenter are still alive. Of the second group of astronauts selected - nine in number - , of which Armstrong was a member, John Young, Tom Stafford, James McDivitt, Jim Lovell and Frank Borman are still alive. Seven of the twelve astronauts who walked on the lunar surface are still alive. Sadly all are now part of history, rather than the forebears of planetary exploration.

This will be be greatly dependent upon what company you seek to join. I have interviewed many hundreds of people and hired hundreds. A minor issue like that would not influence. What I might do would be to ask "Why did you do this course?" I would be looking for a response like "I was more interested in X, Y at school. When I'd decided on a career in computing I recognised I needed to bring myself up to speed in this area." That would show commitment to the field, recognition of skills required and decision making capability. But remember, this is the approach used by one interviewer, with one company.

Interestingly enough, the same may be true in reverse. You are obviously a committed person, who cares passionately about democracy and freedom. That's why is distresses me, and I suspect several others, to see you screaming at the choir for not singing tunes the way you want. As others have pointed out, this is not Hyde Park Corner, where anyone can stand on their soapbox and say whatever they wish. There are a set of rules that apply here and you agreed to follow them. Now you are bitching about them, when there are real and present issues of far greater substance in the real world. Rather than tackle those you come here and berate a group of people who are probably, for the most part, in agreement with much of your thinking. Isn't that a bit silly? You say that it is better if behaviour is determined by the culture rather than through the enforcement of rules. Well, I'm part of this culture and I'm suggesting you back off and rethink what you are doing, because it is the anithesis of your declared intent.

Engineers are not physicists. Engineers think differently from scientists. And unless the engineer designing the car also had a bunch of hands on experience fixing them then I'd pick the mechanic every time. And if the engineer did have that practical time then I'd be picking him because he was also a mechanic.

Such as? I do hope you are not referring to the Pioneer Anomaly. This was put comfortably to bed last year as a thermal effect. The absence of spin stabilisation of the Voyager craft and consequent frequent use of thrusters generated too much noise to detect any anomaly that might have been present.

Is there any field present?

I think it was the omission of several intermediate steps that caused Alan to question you. Also, most stars do not do this. White dwarfs in a binary system may do so. Only stars around ten times the mass of the sun will go supernova following core collapse. That's a very small percentage of the total star population.

@Athena. Are you confusing the freedom to speak freely with the freedom to be an idiot? In general the forum rules are designed to constrain the latter. Most idiots never seem to get this point.

I'm not an intellectual. I'm not sure what you were trying to say. All I have available to me is what you did say and that involved you calling day and night cycles illusions. If you meant something else, which you say you did, then could you clarify that now please. While I await that clarification let me observe that you appear to be wrong in your central thesis. The two most powerful explanatory theories for the fundamentals of nature are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Time is very much a part of the former. I am unclear as to how central it is to the latter. If it is illusory and artificial as you suggest then what of relativity? It must be abandoned. What do you propose to put in its place?

Could you give an example or three?

Thank you for responding to my posts. Would you take the time to sort out the quote boxes, so that your replies do not appear to be my words. thank you.

Fair enough, but not during the opening (or closing) ceremony. Perhaps each Olynpics could contain a memorial garden that honoured all past Olympians who are now dead. Or, in Athens, the home of the games a permanent memorial with names in the manner of the 911 memorial, or the Vietnam memorial in Arlington(?). In short remembrance, but in balanced context.

Science is a cultural artifact, so your suggestion seems incorrect.

sri_nav, I am still waiting for a response to my post, #3 above. Please respond.