Argent

My apologies for being unclear. I said this: "It rather seems to me that you don't want people to agree with you, therefore you select the position that is most likely to discourage agreement. It's an old trick, but seasoned campaigners can usually see through it - often before the practitioner does." I don't know how you converted this into me accusing you of being a Chinese sympathiser. Let me try again. In most and probably all of the positions you adopt you do not wish anyone to agree with you. You wish to be the isolated voice condemning the rest. To do this you present the extremity of each position. As I noted before it is an old debating trick, often favoured by the young who think they have invented it. I don't have an issue with you using this approach. It's very silly, but that your choice. Everyone has a right to be silly.

As far as I can see the majority of the bullying behaviour in the threads you participate in comes from you. You rant, you rave, you whine. You insult people. You complain and accuse. It's tiresome. Please grow up. You probably have some good ideas. It would be nice to discuss them without the agenda driven rhetoric. Any chance of you letting that happen any time soon?

We leave which half as an exercise for the student.

Well that is nice, but do you intend to act upon it? That is, will you prepare a proper short, cogent overview of your hypothesis in the manner I have suggested?

No I didn't. I think a moderator proposed that and maybe even moved your other thread. I have neither the authority nor the inclination to offer such advice. Generally not. The lifespan of the disc is short in astronomical terms. Giant planets are generally thought to form through the collapse of gas and ices onto a rocky core. The window of opportunity for this to happen is small. The core must form and it must attract gas from the disc in large quantities before the protostar enters the T-Tauri stage where strong stellar winds disperse the disc. Only if they are still evolving towards a stable situation and moving through gravitational interactions. I already answered the first question and the last question for you on the other thread. May I assume you don't believe me? Scepticism is good, but it can be taken too far.

Well, there is a lot of hate in your posts, quickqustion. If your intention was to convey the fact that you are upset, it worked. The message came through. If your rage was deliberately outrageous, to generate a reaction, that's a somewhat overdone tactic that usually misfires. If the spewing of vile condemnations was actually a cry for help you might get further by saying "Hi there, I'm a bit confused and upset by some of the bad things that happen in the world. Can you help me see things in a more balanced and optimistic way?" If you were just indulging the usual in-your-face aggression of a confused teenager, don't worry. You'll grow out of it. Just for the hell of it, let's take a closer look at some of your thoughts. There is a lot of flawed thinking in such a short sentence. A. Humanists are a sub-set of humans, therefore it is irrelevant to say you are anti-humanist. Why would you segregate a single sub-set of humanity when you claim they are all guilty? B. I have known many humans who were just as prepared as you to attack "their garbage world", so your claim is therefore incorrect. C. There is a strong case to be made for this not being a garbage world. Perhaps I can summarise the argument thus: the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears he is correct. To that I add the realist see the strengths and the weaknesses, seeking to build on the former and overcome the latter. I know plenty of people who object to putting animals in cages. I am in favour of it where it is part of an effort to preserve endangered species, directly or indirectly and with the proviso that the conditions are made as enriching as possible for the animals. Perhaps you feel my position on this is evil. If so I would consider your position naive and threatening to endangered species. Another member commented that women are not brainwashed to return to abusive boyfriends. He obviously is unaware of the techniques used by abusive boyfriends to brainwash their partners. That makes him ignorant, not evil, not garbage, not worthy of hate. If that is the argument you use for not supporting China I have to say you need to make a massive improvement in your debating technique. Is the Chinese torture of dogs the best reason you have for not supporting China? You don't think their trade in rhino horn or ivory or other portions of animals also deserve a mention? It rather seems to me that you don't want people to agree with you, therefore you select the position that is most likely to discourage agreement. It's an old trick, but seasoned campaigners can usually see through it - often before the practitioner does. Probably true. So what? This simply demonstrates that some people who post in forums can be assholes some of the time. It may also demonstrate that some people who post in forums hope to convince others that they should take responsibility for their own condition. It may also demonstrate that some people recognise a deliberate ploy by some posters to goad other members into adverse reactions. It says little about the price of wheat in Denmark. We definitely should see them that way. We should also see them as peaceful, kind, gentle, social teachers and parents and friends and mentors and carers. If you cannot see that dichotomy and embrace it then perhaps you still have some personal growth to experience. On the whole I find humans endearing, but I hate broccoli.

Unfortunately, while you are reckless with numbers, your numbers are nothing but wrecks that have happened, are in the process of happening, or are about to happen. This leads the reader to believe that you don't know what you are talking about.

Frank, your description of the scientific method has omitted a very important step. That is understandable, since it is implicit, though not explicit, in most descriptions of the scientific method. Before you start speculating it is wise to know what the current thinking is about a subject. An in depth understanding of the data, the hypotheses and the theories is required before embarking on improvements. This is one of the great strengths of science. Newton referred to is as "standing on the shoulders of giants". You don't have to explore every possibility, every potential answer. You see what others have concluded and why they have concluded it. Where necessary you rerun their experiments to confirm their findings, or modify them slightly to strengthen or undermine their conclusions. You have chosen to do one thing. Contemplate the shape of asteroids. From this contemplation you have made a provisional conclusion as to how they may have formed. You have done this purely because you think their shape "looks like" they have been "poured out molten". That is not a scientific approach. For one thing you have failed to consider any of the following: The elemental composition of the asteroids. The mineral composition of the asteroids. The density of the asteroids. The internal structure of the asteroids. The age of the asteroids and the dates of significant events in their history. The orbital characteristics of the asteroids. The variation of the first three variables in relation to the last. Not to mention the many details of planetary formation as currently understood. Given the immense amount of data you have chosen to ignore I can see no reason whatsoever to give your speculation any further attention. I recommend, again, that you do some proper study on the subject, then you will be less likely to propose flawed ideas. I am happy to continue to answer all sensible questions you may have, but I am unlikely to indulge any of your obsessions that are based on "well it looks to me as if".

I fear that you are serious. I fear that you have never read, or certainly not noticed a well written abstract. I fear that the word summary is a neologism to you. I expect your summary to be no longer than a single A4 page. I do not expect you to present the key evidence. I expect you to present a summary of the key evidence. Here is an example of how I would deliver a portion of the key evidence for the current conventional view of plate tectonics. Deep sea trenches are lengthy linear features whose depths are substantially below those of the general depth of the ocean floor (reference). They occur within ocean basins and along some continental/oceanic margins. They are often, although not always, accompanied by a volcanic arc (reference). In addition to these topographic features they are distinguished by gravity anomalies (reference) and high heat flow (reference). Ideally the references should be to primary papers or review papers. The end result should be short, yet omit nothing of importance. It should follow a logical progression, with conclusions building on and being clearly related to what has gone before. I am sorry if my opening sentences come across as aggressive, but really, your inability to understand what a well written summary would be like is truly astounding. It makes me question whether you actually have a clear vision of your hypothesis. At present it just seems a jumble of detail with no coherence whatsoever. I hope you will be able to rectify this soon.

I think the problem arises because less has two meanings. The one that is probably more common today is equivalent to not as much. However, the alternative meaning is without. It is the second sense in which it is used as a suffix. What makes the problem worse for non-native speakers is that native speakers are generally not even consciously aware of this distinction until it is pointed out. We automatically understand that "less rain" means "not as much rain", whereas 'rainless' would mean, "no rain at all". (Even though "rainless" is not a proper word.) I'm just glad I never had to learn English as a non-native speaker. It must be hell!

arc, here is what I see so far. I noted that there does seem to be a lot of repetition of material without it being clear how that material fits into the overall argument. I asked you to take the time to present your hypothesis in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step. What you have responded with is basically a suggestion that I go back and reread the material I have already told you does not come across to me as a coherent, structured argument. I acknowledge that you said "this will have to do at the moment". This post is to let you know that it doesn't help my understanding at all. To exemplify - In post number 1 you state A. The Earth's core is an electromagnetic field generator that produces a variable current and field. This is established science and requires no further justification. B. The Sun's magnetic field could be imposing further variation on the Earth's field. Interactions between the geomagnetic field and charged particles from the sun are well established. You need to provide evidence that a significant variation in the field occurs internally. You need to provide evidence that this is a direct consequence of variation in the sun's magnetic field. C. This could induce a thermal cycle within the Earth. You need to provide quantitative evidence that such is the case. And so on. You have an interesting idea, but without addressing these points, as a start, it is groundless. Perhaps you have addressed them, buried in the many pages of this thread. By all means refer me to those pages, but do so with an accompanying concise summary of your argument and evidence. Thank you.

You are correct. That is wholly unscientific. Rather than speculating wildly why not read a book or two on the subject, or dip into some research papers? As the protoplanetary disc cools, minerals condense out of it. The character of the minerals depends upon the temperature and the composition of the disc at that point. For the generalities we are dealing with here, we can assume the disc to be well mixed and thus of uniform composition. The microscopic mineral grains combine into dust particles, then larger groupings, boulder sized and larger, then planetesimals, up to a few kilometres across, then protoplanets. The larger planetesimals and protoplanets heat up, through the process of accretion and the abundance of short-lived radioactive elements. This leads to segregation into iron rich cores and silicate rich mantles. Subsequent disruption by collision with similar bodies my produce an asteroid that is primarily silicate, or iron. Why would I make such a speculation when the weight of evidence is against it and a perfectly satisfactory explanation, that fits the facts and the simulations, is available. No planet formed in the asteroid belt because Jupiter's gravitational influence disrupted the formation of any such body. I recommend using your energy and imagination to study some facts. This will avoid the waste of coming up with speculations that do not fit the available facts.

No. While migration is caused by interaction with the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disc, it is halted by two things: The dissipation of the disc. Orbital resonances between giant planets. No. They are still there because of orbital resonances. I've answered this before. Some do, some don't. Absolutely not. Stars never bring forth giant planers, regular planets or dwarf planets. All planets arise from a protoplanetary disc. Probably not. The ice planets form around a rocky core that then acts as a powerful attractor for ices and gases. Sedna likely formed by heterogenous accretion in the manner of the terrestrial planets. That said, I've not read anything specifically on Sedna's formation. Not easily, but it is not impossible. This suggests you are still not getting it. Forget the giant planets. They didn't forage into the terrestrial zone. Yes, they influenced the orbits through gravitational interaction, but some of the inner protoplanets were not occasionally plunging into Jupiter. The asteroids were never part of a planet. Jupiter's gravitational influence saw to that. Imagine fifty or so Mar's sized worlds forming sunwards of Jupiter. Now imagine them colliding with each other until we are left with the four terrestrial planets and very minor debris. Now you are closer to the truth.

How do you account for the fact that planetary orbits are observed to be elliptical? (Bar variations accounted for by gravitational interactions.)

OK. I have done a piss poor job of explaining things, since your last post is filled with misunderstandings. When I am actually awake I shall respond with an attempt to correct those misunderstandings.

It is primarily drag with dust and gas. There are two types of migration. Type 1 Migration - the planet is insufficiently massive to clear a gap in the disc and so it is driven inward by a density wake in the disc. This also reduces orbital eccentricity. Type 2 Migration - the planet clears a gap in the disc, but is still tied to the disc's viscous evolution. Some researchers see this as more an exchange of angular momentum between disc and planet. This is, from my perspective at least, a complex subject and difficult to simplify. Please ask more questions as it will help me sort out my understanding, such as it is. We know, that many planets were destroyed in collisions. That is how the final planets were formed, by the collision and agglomeration of many protoplanets. The only way in which there could be no collisions is if we have the nature of planetary formation entirely wrong. In terms of late stage collisions we have lots of evidence: - The "missing mantle" on Mercury, which is explicable by a large glancing blow. - The retrograde revolution of Venus - The crustal dichotomy on Mars - The peculiar orientation of Uranus's spin axis Yes, there were all kinds of collisions, but the odds on the kind you seem hell bent on proposing are seriously stacked against. If you wish to argue the case you need to gather supporting evidence, or develop a well reasoned argument. So far you have neither.

A quick review of some of the literature reveals that the ratio you speak of has two characteristics: 1. There is considerable scatter in the data defining the ratio. 2. The ratio is specifically applicable only to dormant black holes. The ratio does not apply to active black holes. For example, this paper. If you have contrary information please post the link(s) now. Otherwise this thread would appear to have reached its sell by date.

What sort of record does the "rest of the world" have in matters of this type?

I do accept that the difference between your perception and mine is that one of us is clearly on a different planet.

We could simulate that now, with a high level of accuracy. The experiment would not be required. Besides why destroy a very effective orbiting way station? Largely because removing the justification for the objective removes the need to work out a mechanism. Then you are not trying hard enough. I'm reasonably sure if you have studied physics to fourth year in secondary school you have everything you need to do an approximate calculation. This is just silly. Did you not read what I wrote. Mars is only 1/10th the mass of the Earth, so even if you collided four more Mars sized objects into the planet it would still only be half the size of the Earth. Add Phobos and Ceres and Vesta and you haven't added 10% to the mass of Mars. You haven't added 1% to the mass of Mars. You have added a mere 0.2%. I ask you again, what practical effect on atmosphere retention do you think that will have? So you seriously think that by impacting Mars with an overweight pebble you can actually have the pebble make its way to the core? If you hit it hard enough, it might make, but if you do that you'll break the planet apart and while most of it may reassemble and cool down with a nice crust after a million years or so, some of the chunks that don't will quite likely wind up paying us a visit down here. Summary: Your idea is ludicrous. It reads like the plot for a SF "B" movie. (Lexical aside - vulcanisation is not the process of inducing volcanic activity, but the treatment of natural rubber with various chemicals in order to create cross links between the polymers and thereby improve the mechanical properties of the rubber. ) Final observation - My criticisms of the mechanics of your proposal is that it won't work. The ideas you appeared to dismiss so cavalierly in your OP are superior. I am in general in favour of terraforming Mars, just not by your method.

I detect a couple of problems with your proposals, but first: Unpleasant and dreary are subjective descriptions. It looks far from dreary to me. I'll grant you it's cold, but so is the Arctic and there are plenty of deadly places on the Earth. These are not sound arguments against colonisation, so it appears that you have selected them because they are easy to dismiss. Definitely not. Why do you imagine a Phobos impact would promote atmospheric regeneration? Have you considered the composition of Phobos? As near as we can determine it approximates a carbonaceous chondrite. Some chondrites do contain significant water although the surface material is dehydrated. The low density points to a significant porosity and the possibility of substantial ice. However, the total mass, even if all those factors were at optimum, is miniscule compared with what is required. You might get some benefits by running it into the south polar cap thereby releasing substantial volumes of CO2. This might raise surface temperatures sufficiently to complete melting of both caps, water and carbon dioxide. However, your plan seems to rely on the volatile content of Phobos alone. You are right to recognise that is not enough. I just don't think you have recgonised how much it misses the mark by. You have now increased the mass of Mars by 0.2%. What makes you think that will make any difference to atmosphere generation or retention? You mention "adding significantly to its core mass". As written you appear to think that Phobos, Vesta and Ceres, upon collision will somehow penetrate to the core of the planet. What's that about? Why do you expect the heat pulse from the impacts to be sufficient to melt the core and reestablish a magnetic field? Have you done the maths? If so, let's see it. If not I recommend you do so now. That's true. What is your estimate of the composition and quantity of volatiles likely to be expelled? How do you intend to convert these into an effective atmosphere. How do you intend to preserve that atmosphere against spallation by the solar wind? If you really want to chuck things at Mars, then grab comets from the Kuiper Belt. If you synchronise their impact vectors you might even be able to spin up the rotation rate to get the Martian day even closer to ours. I've been very dismissive of your proposal since you chose to be very dismissive of the carefully considered proposals that have been made in the past. If you had recognised their value I would have been prepared to look for the positive elements in yours.

Excuse an equally emotional response. I am of the generation of old people, past retirement age, but still working. Things are a ****k sight better today than they were in the past and any old person who tells you different was probably an idiot even when they were young!

I don't think there were any reported cases of people being unable to see Helen Keller.

Myopia.

Good luck. Let us know how it all turns out.