Kyrisch

I doubt it. Swansont's explanation is consistent with the fact that the spike seems to be protruding from the edge of the well, where (just like tectonic plates) the ice-layer on top could squeeze out some liquid water through the crack.

No, shadows don't move. The obstruction which causes the shadow does, allowing the darkness to again 'make way' for light.

I think that the main issue with parties that take hostages is that we 'value human life above all.' And there is that inherent guilt in acting against the pirates and causing them to kill the captain. This is something I don't understand, though, because no one would be guilty if the pirates had just decided to kill the captain in the first place. So we have to cases: Either they've already decided to kill the captain, in which case moving against the pirates (who obviously will not negotiate) will result in no greater consequence than if they had decided to act on their decision formerly, or they aren't really going to kill the captain and we get the ship back, captain and all, once we apply a little real pressure. So in all, I agree. Saving many at the cost of the few has always been a tough moral issue, but whose answer is decidedly obvious.

ACM, in your stay of three days at this forum, you've managed to average a total of 27 and change posts per day, most of which are in threads you yourself started regarding such inane (as this), inconsequential (which few bother responding to), assumption-ridden (which causes the thread to quickly devolve for semantical issues), or fallacy-ridden leading questions, all written in mostly textspeak with "alot a grammer" issues. Now, I know that this specific instance is in general discussion, but I would like to speak for a lot of people here in saying that it would behoove you to curb this type of behaviour in the future. Don't take me wrong, I'm not insulting you; I am merely pointing out that your current modus operandi is not entirely flattering and may cause many to lose respect for you. Underneath it all is a sincerely inquisitive and intelligent mind and I would hate for you to be subconsciously labeled a nuisance and for any possible legitimate future questions and posts be disregarded. Just a thought.

But darkness doesn't move. It 'gets out of the way' in the same way empty space does when you move through it. I tried to point out the ridiculousness of the concept with my hotdog-eating analogy, and ACM pretty much hit the nail on the head: "Whatever is left on his plate," in other words, wherever light hasn't reached yet.

You're still using vague terms. Had anyone ever fathomed the wheel before it was invented? Maybe. But it was the person who took all those odd thoughts and produced something that synthesised the idea.

Except that keyboards don't have a sense of touch...

How many hotdogs can a world-class eating competition champion not eat in a minute?

The intersection of the universe and not-Earth.

Why would that 'be the end'?

Mostly due to the lack of controlled variables, I'd say.

I was taught that 'that' is to be used when the emphasis is on the prepositional phrase and not the qualified noun, as opposed to 'which' wherewith the prepositional phrase is extra information, and can be omitted. A perfect example: "This Is Just To Say" by William Carlos Williams I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast. Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold.

In extension of iNow's post (I seem to do that a lot >.<), a visual might help:

From your point of view, yes.

The difficulty with that is that effect can be a noun or a verb, while affect is only a verb.

It doesn't seem like the experiment was done very scientifically >.<

It depends on how you define 'original thought'. If you mean something completely unprecedented, then no, but then again how useful would that be? If an idea has no regards to anything you have ever experienced, then chances are it is probably useless in reality. On the other hand, we are entirely capable and quite adept at recombination of old ideas. How else would we be so damn ingenious? I mean, almost every day I'm blown away by the neatness of some odd invention or other. It's ridiculous what people can come up with.

By 'speed' of a force, I'm going to assume you mean magnitude, or 'strength' of a force. In response to your question, if three forces act on a single point on the same exact time, you can use vector maths to find the net force, which will be a single force in a single direction. I'm not sure what you mean about 'timing' because you stipulated that they are acting at exactly the same time, but the "speed" (read: magnitude) of the forces does matter; when you do the maths, the force with the greatest magnitude will affect the direction the most, similar to a weighted average.

Baryogenesis refers to the event in the early universe when the imbalance between matter and antimatter began. However, wiki puts forth no possible mechanism for such an event, and I'm curious as to how modern scientist suppose this occurred. Any ideas?

What was I back when I was not alive? Not alive, probably.

I think they might be more interested in the biological function of altruism, not the chemical aspect. You could check the wiki page on altruism in the animal kingdom, I'm sure there will be some history on it.

Wow... Talk about necromancy -- I don't even remember why I even asked this question...

This seems to crop up way too much. In extension to iNow's video, I have a standard reply: Alright, then, so where did this first consciousness come from, eh? To which there are a few standard answers: 1. It always existed or 2. It spontaneously came into being or 3. It was created 1 and 2 are especially ironic because they contradict the very premise that the conclusion was based on: that consciousness cannot have always existed or spontaneously come into being. 3 just leads to an infinite regress. 'Turtles all the way down' is oddly resonant of the original topic of this thread; it's not a conceivable proposition and therefore has no bearing on logic.

When you so readily mix scientific terms with barely scientific terms with pseudoscientific terms and even some terms outside the realm of any science ever dreamt (cosmic fish tank? really?) you can't be surprised when people don't understand what you're saying. Either practice being more precise with your language or post less; because scientific language is meant to be precise, it becomes extremely clear when you're talking about something you actually know very little about, because you start tossing word salad as opposed to actually meaningful statements.