pavelcherepan

Agreed. Most running apps by default display your pace in mins/km. On the side note of inverse units I always found funny that in Imperial measurements fuel consumption is measured in miles/gallon, while in most other places it's liters/100km.

You have misread what I wrote and what studiot has written. Not the lower G-value. The angular momentum of the Earth should be the cause. Lower g value should be the result of deformed spherical shape and not the other way around. OK. Makes slightly more sense now. I can only assume imatfaal was referring to the lower absolute value. On the other hand if you use a simple mechanics formula for total energy then your point doesn't hold: [latex]E_T = \frac{mv^2}{2} + mgh[/latex]

I remember what your argument was, but as I said before, other studies (including those you're referring to) contradict your position and plus you can't use data for Cs accumulation in roots of benthic plants when discussing the plume because there are no plants in pelagic zone. The other article on accumulation by fungi while also hardly relevant to the current discussion contradicts your statement of preferential Cs accumulation showing (at least in the abstract) that Cs is accumulated similarly to K and Rb. So you may have made an argument and posted the evidence to support it but it doesn't seem that your evidence is valid. Which I did in the previous post and which you refused to acknowledge so for your convenience I've repeated it above ^. So you say. Let's think of a marine ecosystems affected. The base of the food chain is phytoplankton, which provides food for zooplankton and then to various types of fish and other organisms. As far as the fish is concerned I've already linked you to a study showing that they excrete Cs quite effectively and it doesn't accumulate extensively. Instead, let's look at the other side of the food pyramid and see whether there've been studies regarding accumulation by phytoplankton. And indeed there have been some. For example, <Bioaccumulation of 137Cs and 57Co by five marine phytoplankton species> How does this sound? I am. You just chose to ignore my argumentation. As far as bioexposure is concerned you've been shown time and time again by everyone in the thread that radioactivity levels from Fukushima plume in the Pacific are by orders of magnitude lower than natural background from 40K. I can't count how many times that point have been made and how much evidence you've been presented with and since you bring it up again I have no other option but to conclude that it's in fact you who is being ignorant. Thanks for the explanation. Makes more sense now.

I agree with studiot here, I still think that the underlying cause for things weighing less at the equator is the rotation and angular momentum of the Earth and hence the shape of the Earth and hence the lower g value at the equator. This makes no sense to me.

StringJunky, would you care to explain what that one means? Sorry, if that's a stupid question.

Of course, everyone in this thread is ignorant and it's just you who is a shining beacon of truth and righteousness. One of the studies you linked was centered on caesium accumulation by benthic plants and macro-invertebrates which is not exactly relevant to the discussion of a plume in pelagic zone and the second article was regarding accumulation of Cs from Chernobyl fallout by a land fungi. By the way, this is the quote from the abstract of the second paper: And yet you keep claiming that K and Cs behave wildly differently in organisms. Your own resources contradict that notion. And again: So all three of those seem to have been biomagnified in a similar manner. Here is another quote for you from <How Is Fukushima Fallout affecting Marine Life> Throughout this thread you keep proclaiming ignorance on the side of those who oppose your idea and yet you keep ignoring all the information and links to various studies that you are being presented.

Correction to my earlier post (I was on the plane so couldn't look the numbers up properly). Viscosity of astenosphere is actually 1019 Pa*s and the rest of the mantle is between 1-2*1021 Pa*s. Compare that with calculated viscosity for steel (103-105 Pa*s) and aluminium (3-4*104 Pa*s). Although the numbers i originally posted were wrong the difference now is even greater - over 14 orders of magnitude. Lavas are viscous liquids of course, the paper below gives viscosity numbers for Hawaiian lavas which are generally around 4-5*104 Pa*s. Most other lavas would be less than that. http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/~scott/Nichols_articles/Nichols_lava_viscosity.pdf

Yeah, that's what I wrote Pascal-seconds.

If you want to talk viscosity, then consider this. Astenosphere, the less viscous part of either crust or mantle has an average viscosity of around 10^24 pa*s (can't remember the exact number of the top of my head) which is like 8 orders of magnitude more than solid steel. The rest of the mantle is in 10^27 pa*s region so whatever the pressure it won't flow very fast.

Not straight away. It will take time. A long time. Solid rock flows slowly.

That if you assume a pretty much zero thickness of flat Earth. If it's not zero then center of mass will be below the surface and gravity would in fact be the strongest at the center and weaker closer to edges. Currently it's stronger at poles because at poles you're closer to the center of mass and at the equator you're farther away.

Where did you get that from? The crust is solid, mantle is solid, inner core is solid too. The only liquid bits are the outer core, bits and pieces within astenosphere and some minor amount of melt within the crust. That's far off from being mostly liquid. On the other hand the mantle is known to exhibit solid flow within timeframes of tens and hundreds of millions of years, so my guess would be that should the rotation stop it should take a spherical shape but after a relatively long time.

I don't exactly agree with jeremyjr but I can see where he's coming from. Mathematical self-consistency is good, but not really enough to qualify as a proper natural science theory. In fact, if a theory is self-consistent mathematically but doesn't make testable real world predictions it can't be falsified. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of string theory (maths in it is way beyond my league), I know that it's pretty good at explaining known phenomena within its framework but does it make testable predictions and have those been tested? EDIT: Searching the internets I haven't been able to locate any information on any successful tests of string theory mostly because any such tests would require energy levels many orders of magnitude higher than is currently achievable. So all in all, however elegant and fascinating the mathematical framework is and despite the fact that many scientists consider it to be the only current option for a "theory of everything", string theory (superstring, M-Theory) remains mostly a mathematical curiosity with beautiful equations but no real results to show for it.

I always thought that the tie is supposed to go all the way down and cover the belt buckle. I'm pretty sure Mr. Castro's tie is a bit too short and can't say about Obama's tie since he's not sitting straight up.

There are plenty of theories on how the Universe will end and one of them is referred to as <Big Bounce>, which sounds like what you're talking about. But anyway, if you haven't done so already, have a look at some other options how things will go: <Ultimate fate of the Universe>

From a lot of arguing with Robittybob1 I think what he meant was "stationary with respect to the Earth", not with respect to the Sun

studiot, Thanks for that but if you'd be so kind and explain the difference between our positions. You say that theory can describe an entire subject and I agree with that, you say that theory can describe a small set of empirical data and I agree with that too. With that in mind I fail to see an argument Also I still can't see how my original definition is incorrect. Maybe I missed something in which case I apologize.

BTW, how is the MMO element going to be implemented in the game? What is going to be the interaction between players?

Sounds quite fun, possibly, but two points here - 1) such a game can be thought as promoting illegal activity and 2) using bugs and errors to access restricted/protected content is not the original meaning of hacking.

Principle? In my understanding it's just another name for a theory. For example, "Archimedes' principle", "momentum conservation principle", "relativity principle" - are all either theories in themselves or a part of some theory. What is the difference between principle and theory for you? Maybe I'm not getting something. As far as I'm concerned scientific method goes like this: Observation -> Idea -> Hypothesis -> Theory ..... -> Updated theory Are you referring to a theorem in a mathematical sense here? Don't you think that idea can be presented without mathematical apparatus to support it? I don't think I'm entirely cool with the concept of axioms in science (bar mathematics, of course).

In science a theory is the highest level of approval any idea can get to. And also there can be no theories that can be treated as "factual proven thing" because that means that it can't possibly be falsified and is not a science as a result.

Slavery is not a tradition - it's a form of economical system and there's been many examples in history when slavery didn't exist in some nation and suddenly came to be. You can't really call that a tradition, can you? From subjective point of view a private revelation is to be taken seriously and since the question is about beliefs and belief is also a subjective thing, then private revelation makes total sense. Some empirical pseudosciences, traditional herbal medicines for example. Use of any particular herb is based on empirical data. It may be incorrect and not thoroughly tested but empirical data nonetheless.

Indeed, there isn't one. I got confused.

There was a paper recently accepted into Physical Review Letters which describes about numerical simulation of merging black holes in binary black hole system and also shows the evolution of black hole spins. The paper itself is only available as an abstract <Flip-flopping black holes> the rest being hidden beyond the paywall but the video of the simulation is pretty cool and the music is awesome too. http://ccrgpages.rit.edu/~healy/Movies/ff_wf_v3_audio2.mp4

From what I recall, NaCl and KCl form a solid solution that is K can freely substitute Na in the crystal structure and vice versa so what you have is not 70% KCl + 30% NaCl but in fact a solid solution with a formula (0.7 K,0.3 Na)Cl, unless it's a purely physical mixture of two salts. I think it would be a major hassle trying to separate those. EDIT: Speaking of major hassles one way you can get almost pure KCl is by diluting the compound you have in water and then 're-crystallysing. Both KCl and NaCl have similar solubility in water but there will be more KCl to begin with. Dilute large amount of your compound in warm water, noting how much you have put in there and what concentrations of both KCl and NaCl you have and then start cooling the water down. KCl will be the first to start crystallising. Calculate the temperature when NaCl solution will also become supercritical and stop cooling at this temp. Drain all the remaining liquid and what you'll be left with is almost pure KCl. Rinse and repeat until satisfied. EDIT2 (this quote is a better description of the process):