Ophiolite

Tharindu, this is dredged up from forty year old memories. One uses a hand centrifuge of the type shown at this site. (http://www.djblabcare.co.uk/djb/product/1136/Centrifuges-C1011-Hettich_Hand_Centrifuge) The device comes with graduated cylinders. Add a predetermined volume of the liquid to be tested to the graduated cylinder. Rotate rapidly until the oil and water have separated. My recollection is that this typically took around one minute. Read off the amounts of oil and of water and calculate percentages.

A simple hand centrifuge with a graduated cylinder should allow a good measure of this. I have used this technique successfully on fluid produced during drill stem tests on production oil wells.

In "10 Books Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor" the author, Benjamin wiker, presents a well-reasoned argument as to why Ayn Rand's philosophy is the antithesis of true conservatism. I recommend the book to conservatives, because it could help straighten out your thinking and to liberals because it is important to know your enemy.

This sentence, (or is it two sentences?) makes no sense. Did you mean to say "While I find RAJA's speculation lacking in a few logical consistencies, it may have some value as a "thought" experiment. As such it considers what causes the stretchin limit to be reached." If we apply the same logic then there is no chemical reaction occuring today that might not occur differently tomorrow. Tomorrow objects may fall faster or slower. Supernovae may generate different proportions of elements than they do today, or they did four billion years ago. etc We see a consistent pattern in the behaviour of galaxies that leads us to propose, in the absence of any contrary evidence, or theoretical foundation, that expansion is continuing and is accelerating. End of story.

Activate your Luddite detection equipment and the meaning may become clearer.

I stopped listening when you got to the part where you talked about "the curvature of a triangle which can be triangulated". There is only so much babble one can absorb at one sitting. Israel, here is some advice. I think it is good advice. (Therefore, based on you posts here and your audio file I expect you to ignore it.) Write up your conecpt so people can read it. Reading is a more efficient method of absorbing this type of information since it allows for rapid return to earlier points in the text as often as required. It also will require you to structure your thesis more carefully, which in turn will make it more comprehensible. You would also be well advised to define your terms rigorously. At the moment what you are saying comes across as word salad.

Of course it's possible. The solution is to avoid intercourse while sitting on a toilet seat.

Either you have chosen poor quality references, or you have misread them, or you have mistyped, or you are lying. It is not a reflection, it is a refraction.

I would rather say that they are directed by a combination of genetic and cultural influences towards a pattern of behaviour that has often been highly productive in the development and maintenance of civilisation. As with all such behavioural expressions resulting from nature and nurture the results are not always highly productive.

As previously noted, the exploited hydrocarbon reserves are found in porous and permeable rocks, typically sandstones and carbonates. Pore space typically constitutes between 5% and 20% of the rock. When the hydrocarbons are extracted three things tend to occur - the pressure in the reservoir falls and the remaining fluids expand to fill the potential void; fluids move into the reservoir from adjacent formations; the reservoir rock may undergo some compression. The extent of the latter process will depend upon the amount of fluid withdrawn, the efficiency of the first two mechanisms and the character of the reservoir rock. Fine grained, well sorted, rounded, siliceously cemented sandstones will show little tendency to compression; chalks and loosely aggreagted sands the most. The Ekosfisk field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea was the first commercially exploited North Sea oil, production beginning in the 1960s. By the 1990s subsidence of the seabeds amounted to several metres. New production platforms were installed and the main platform raised a corresponding amount.

what you think is irrelevant. The current evidence is that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. A speculation has to be based upon more than just an opinion or a thought. It does require some evidence. What is your evidence, no matter how tentative, that leads you to think as you do?

So you arrive at your conclusion based not on evidence, but upon likes and dislikes. That is not scientific. I would also argue that it is unethical.

When I had a suspected brain tumour and was hospitalised for a stroke I considered a conversion to Islam. However that was entirely because I thought it might bring my wife, a Moslem, some degree of comfort were I to die at that point. Unfortunately, or not, I retain too much respect for religion, or at least for its serious followers, to make a false declaration of belief.

But I think this statement is more a reflection of our inability to truly conceive of the meaning of such terms as infinity, eternity and nothing. I don't see it as constituing a strong argument.

Always implies time. If there might be dimensions other than time and space - for which I concede no evidence exists, but run with me - and if these dimensions be capable of 'restructuring', by chance or causation, then there need not always have been something since time might not always have bben extant and therefore the operning question is absolutely a false dichotomy.

Homo sapiens , dates back to between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago is when we took a big stab at agriculture as a means of moving towards a cultural milieu in which lawyers could flourish.

I'm not seeking to add strength to argument: I am very deliberately taken pot shots at your ettiquette which stinks. Do you routinely neg rep anyone who provides wiki as a source? Either way, as I said, ridiculous. I'm done with you. Welcome to my first use of the Ignore function for probably two years.

So you have this vague disquiet, which you cannot adequately explain, that the 'standard' explanation is faulty and you hand out negative rep to someone just for presenting the standard explanation. So, if you didn't like the idea that SNC meteorites probably come from Mars and I made a post saying they probably did, you would give me negative rep? And if you wouldn't do it in that case , why not? Ridiculous!

There is no reason to treat anyone, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, or taste in footwear with anything but respect, until and unless they have shown by their behaviour that they are not worthy of that respect.

That makes sense to me. Is it wrong? If not, why has someone given negative rep?

I've always been distracted by thoughts of being able to own my very own goat.

Without defining it I find it impossible to provide an answer. Since, by some definitions our ape cousins have culture, then it did not emerge in man, but in one of our common ancestors with our fellow apes. Since tool making, in a consistent manner, is surely a part of culture, then it emerged about two and a half million years ago. Or, if you are looking for something involving 'art', probably about 50,000 years ago though direct evidence does't turn up till about 35,000 years ago.

Green Xenon - if you can make more posts like your opening post here you will find several positive things willl happen: People will listen to you. People will respect you. People will sympathise with your situation. People will do what is in their power to help you. This has not happened in the past because you have not made people aware of your condition, but instead have posted extreme statements which you agree are highly offensive. This thread is a very good start for you doing things in a more positive way. Good luck.

That also struck me as a possibility. However are there any foundries or steel mills in your vicinity? Or any form of heavy industry that might have involved casting? It could be a form of slag.

People are tall, or short; endomorphs, or ectomorphs,; blondes, or brunettes; Rhesus +, or Rhesus -. Some have large, efficient kidneys, others suffer kidney failure; some have high IQs; some have low IQs. People are individuals and vary in so many ways. This variation is a consequence of genetic, environmental and cultural influences. You don't need to envisage weird explanations to account for the differences.