Area54

On a clear day you can see all our yesterdays.

Having re-read the posts in this thread my personal summary is, I need the Earth, sadly the Earth does not need me.

The latter comment that I have bolded relates to most of us, most of the time and reveals that in your "40-odd year career development" you learnt a great deal more than just thermodynamics. Thank you for the timely reminder. My way of expressing the concept is that there is a reason we have two ears, but only one mouth.

Since being periodically silly seems to be your superpower, I didn't think you deserved the neg.rep, so I've countered it for you.

I got those points. I thought you made them clearly in your OP. My query was on your very specific point that seemingly condemned those who spoke of "gay genes". Now, I agree with your assertion that homosexual behaviour and orientation is likely determined by both genetics and environment. Consequently, I acknowledge that "gay genes" must almost certainly exist. So I see nothing "chaotic" or negative about mentioning them and am puzzled why you have done so. By all means attack the arguments of those who insist it is only "gay genes", but not the fact that they have been proposed.

I never fail to be amazed at the combination of theory and technology (and oustanding intellect) that leads to observations and discoveries such as this. It is a pity we often fail to bring the same commitment and focus to other problems, both global and personal. Thanks for the post.

You acknowledge that there is a genetic element that contributes to homosexuality. If there is such an element surely that can only be the existence of one or more genes that, through their expression, predispose people to homosexual practice. So, why are you decrying such claims?

Extract from your link: MRO is good at finding new craters. Such “fresh” craters can be identified by the new-looking ejecta blanket of rocky debris around them. Many more of these can be seen on Mars due to the planet’s very thin atmosphere, which doesn’t burn up larger meteors as easily as Earth’s atmosphere. More of them therefore actually impact the planet. MRO has found over 800 new impact craters so far during its mission. The one pictured in Fig. 1 is about 98 feet (30 meters) across. The impact was strong enough to throw ejecta as far as 9.3 miles (15 km). The only problem is, we are used to seeing images like the outflow channels in Fig. 2, claimed by Mars ‘experts’ to be billions of years old. If the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has discovered 800 new ones in the 15 years it has orbited Mars, then in 1 billion years Mars would have received 368 such impacts on every square kilometer of the planet and the flow features would be barely detectable. Note that in the images there are a number of impacts, but there are no impacts on the flow features. 1. What evidence do you have that these "new" craters were formed during the period after the work of the MRO began? It seems much more likely that the improved optics of the MRO allowed previously unrecognised geologically recent craters to be identified - the article even notes "MRO is good at finding new craters". 2. To what extent does the example impact represent a typical impact? Are they all this large? What is the smallest detected? The average size?

Please sir, please sir, I know this one! And the word Law definitely stands in Scotland, since that's what mountains and hills do - they stand up in the air. Dundee Law Irish Law The Law

Your modus operandi appears to be thinking you have made yourself clear. If you had posted this: you would have answered my question and we could have proceeded to the next step. Off-Topic: You are seemingly educated, intelligent, literate and well informed in certain fields; ideal as a member of the forum. Unfortunately you have an aggressive, arrogant posting style that is likely not making you any friends. (sarcasm/ If only I was more familiar with DSM I could take stab at what your problem is. /sarcasm) Up to you whether or not you do something about it. I'll take you off Ignore in a month to see if you tried.

FFS. This is a discussion forum. The wrangle over DSM definitions has caught my attention on several occassions on several forums over several years. If I can come to better understand why these disputes arise then I can - potentially - make a contribution to your thread. That's the background to my earlier posts. That and just hoping to learn something new. Please also note, my query was not "Why should I care about psychology", but rather "Why should I care about the specifics you mention in your OP". It's that flaming context again, but mea culpa on the ambiguity. So, no, I have no interest in hi-jacking your thread. I had an interest in the matters you raised in it and wanted to learn more. Since you don't like the approach I took to having that discussion on this discussion forum I'll leave you discuss amongst yourself.

Fair enough. I accept that I have failed, so far, to express myself in such a way that you answer what I am asking, rather than what I appear to ask. I'll just move on.

Utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring context. Word meaning is contigent upon context. The context here - a science discussion, on a science forum - left no room for ambiguity.

I have an interest in Earth Science. I can tell people why they should care about Earth Science. I think my grasp of Earth Science could be seen as compromised if I were unable to do so. I had hoped you might be able to offer something comparable. There are some apparent reasons implicit in your second paragraph that provide that, but an explicit expression would have been helpful. I have an interest in psychology. I have almost no interest in what I perceive as an incompetent, questionably supported attempt to classify aspects of human behaviour. I gave you an opportunity to persuade me my position was flawed. Perhaps educating the masses holds no appeal for you.

Well, I was asking why should I care, not why should you care. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can understand why Einstein cared to figure out gravity and relativity. I am no Einstein, so such a care on my part would be offensively arrogant. So, in regard to psychology why should I - a member of Joe Public as far as psychology goes - care about the specifics you raised in your OP? I have no idea what this means. Specifically, I don't no if the thanks is a genuine thanks for engaging in the thread, or a sarcastic thanks for ...something. The second sentence does not parse. Perhaps you could rephrase.

My impression has been that it does, at best, a primitive job in this regard. You appear to have a similar suspicion. For me the key question is, why should I care? I have some thoughts on that, but since you - apparently - have examined the situation more closely I should like your answer(s) to the question. (My answers would likely be ill-informed guesses.)

Be honest. How many of you were tempted to quote Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the Los Alomos Laboratory, which played a crucial role in the Mahattan project? Congratulations on resisting the temptation. I am a much weaker person. Oppenheimer said, of the first atomic explosion it evoked memories of words in the Bhagavad Gita, "I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds." It's interesting that the code name for the first test, Trinity, was probably set by Oppenheimer and references the three aspects of God in Christianity. Oppenheimer was an interesting character.

That seems to happen quite a lot. Have you figured out what's causing it?

This is just silly. It is true that some lying is for exactly the purpose you outline here, but not all lying. A single contrary example is all that is needed to onvalidate your hypothesis. Here is one such example. A couple of decades ago a friend confided in me that his young daughter was having great difficulty in learning to read. Though he was spending time with her each evening working on her reading there seemed to be little or no progress. I suggested he changed tactics: on the next occassion he should praise her efforts and note that they were a big imrpovement over the previous day. In other words, lie to her. He gave it a try and there was immediate sucess. The eveing following the unwarranted praise there was a genuine improvement. This continued until she had caught up with and in many cases surpassed her classmates in reading ability. She went on to become a primary school teacher. Will your counter argument be he was merely lying for the selfish wish to see his offspring prosper? I think you'll need a better argument than that to convince me.

Emphasis added below. That is very clear. You stated that the "Earth needs". What you seemingly meant was "biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. " This is not rocket science. Your post was ambiguous, now you are just digging a deeper hole by denying the ambiguity. I've already noted that I, and most others, can make the same sort of ambiguous statements. Had you just acknowledged that, instead of doubling down on your denial, then these last few posts would have been unnecessary. By the way I've cancelled out one of the neg. reps someone gave one of your posts. I didn't think your intransigence merited it. And now I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

I explained to you why, in the context of this thread, your post was ambiguous. I regret I was unable to make this clear enough for you to recognise and accept the ambiguity of your post. I'll try harder next time. I note that in another thread you are also asserting clarity of writing, while taking a snide swipe at the reading comeptence of a senior member. Perhaps your writing is not always as clear as you think it is. That is true of most people. I know it is true of me. If one of my posts is misunderstood the first person I suspect of incompetence is myself, not the reader. I commend this approach to you.

Such a conclusion is best left to the reader, not to the author. To this reader your post appeared to implicilty support the position adopted by the OP. I was correcting that impicltly expressed support. So, either I have reading comprehension difficulties, or you made - in context - a potentially ambiguous post by duplicating the use of "need" from the OP, the contentious point in this thread.

In support of @swansont's observation I add, from a slightly different perpsective, that the bulk of the Earth (literally) has no need for, interest in, or dependence on biological life. The core of the Earth would still slowly cool, the geodynamo would still generate its field and the solid mantle would continue to convect. Plate tectonics would likely be modified, but should still exist. You have made meaningful observations, but have misinterpreted them. There are cycles, cycles of climate, of weathering, of atmospheric composition, of sedimentation, of ocean currents, of continental movement, of vulcanism. Life has adapted to, and to some extent, influences these cycles, but they are most accurately described and studied without using the word "need".

Absolutely. While one acknowledges that the ancestral wolf lies somewhere within any and all dogs, nurture far outranks nature in how that is expressed. This reminds me of another, perhaps less acknowledged truth: humans train dogs, but cats train humans. My current cat has trained me to rise at 3:00 am to give it its early morning feeding: resistance is futile. That said, I'm fundamentally a dog person. The sequence of several cats were all adoptions, supported by a wife who objects to dogs. I'm just suspicious about feline motivation: are they sitting next to me for warmth, or for companionship? Which is it? Clearly that Schrodinger fellow knew a thing or two about cats!

Why should your personal incredulity be thought convincing? The flooding of Doggerland (southern North Sea, the Black Sea, the Perisan/Arabian Gulf, Sundaland and many former coastal lowlands all occurred in the last 10ky. Do you belive no oral tradition could have been carried forward from those times? I imagine you are aware that before (and in some cases, long after) writing was invented oral historians played an important part within cultures. Why do your rule out this possibility?