Ophiolite

I'm not smart enough to handle Navier-Stokes, so I just play around with approximations afforded by Bingham Plastic and Power Law models, which is fine for dealing with the hydraulics of drilling fluids.

Damn! Unable to edit my post. It should have read "North east south America" not "North west".

Frankly the evidence is against this hypothesis. If it was correct then all zombies would be accompanied by cats and this is clearly not the case.

Come now chaps, surely you aren't arguing against the glories of capatalism? Are you all closet communists?

Off topic post: I am at a loss to see how any of the posts in this thread merit a + award. I'm not complaining, just infinitely puzzled. For consistency someone ought to give this post a + also.

Yes. Refer to my previous post.

I haven't watched the youtube video, but the event they are probably talking about is a collapse of part of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on La Palma in the Canary Islands. Such collapses are known from subsea landslide material. In the research paper by Ward and Day I linked to in my earlier post they explore the effects of a catstrophic collapse of 500 cubic kilometres of material into the ocean. They then compute the probable wave height and subsequent dispersion within the Atlantic. This, according to their calculations, still produces a sufficient wave height at the US Atlantic seaboard to produce extensive run up and major damage and probable loss of life. Since it would effect the entire seaboard emergency services could not readily be sourced from adjacent communities. This would be a disaster on an unparalled scale for any western country. The analysis conducted by Ward and Day followed hypothesised flank failure noted by Day (DAY,S et al.(1999),Recent structural evolution of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano, La Palma, Canary Islands: Volcanic rift zone reconfigurtion as a precursor to volcanic flank instability? J.Volcanol.Geotherm.Res., Special Issue 94 (1–4), 135–167. ) and Carracedo (CARRACEDO,J.C., et al.(1999),Giant quaternary landslides in the evolution of La Palma and El Hierro, Canary Islands, J.Volcanol.Geoth.Res.94 (1–4), 169–190.) Evidence supporting the potential for flank failure is uncertain. A detailed gravimetric and GPS study conducted in 2006/2007 that also included earlier measurements was inconclusive. Further analyses by other researchers claimed Ward and Day's findings were exagerated. However, Lovholt in "Oceanic propagation of a potential tsunami from the La Palma Island", using a more sophisticated model produced results that, though not as severe as Ward and Day, are still extremely serious. It is notable that they see the worst situation being in north west South America, rather than the Atlantic seaboard of the US and Canada.

The translator program failred on this occassion. I have no idea what you are asking.

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: Lagomorpha Possibly related to rodents, which would place them in the grand order Glires.

The concept of the executive summary or abstract should be at the forefront of any science education.

I would probably ask your friends what is it that makes them believe their education better equips them to predict the beahviour of waves generated in the ocean by massive landslides than physicists, mathematicians and geologists, who have spent years studying the relevant background. Incredulity is not an argument against anything. For example, I can't believe anyone is as stupid as your friends, but my incredulity does not prevent their stupidity. More to the point, show them a print out of this research paperon the subject and ask them which part of the maths in section 3 they disagree with. Next explain to them that this is only a major shift in water from a human standpoint. It's basically the top of 3m of an ocean that is kilometres deep and is only one of the oceans on the planet. It would devastate the eastern seaboard, but the global impact would be barely detectable a millenia or two hence. I'm not sure what you can do with the religious guy. How does he bring religion in? God's punishment for the sins of New Yorkers?

Rubbish. I regularily travel to the US, the Middle East and the Far East. I don't want to have to say to myself, "aha, it's 3:00 am, and I'm in Dubai, so it must be just before lunch". If it's 3:00 am I want to know it's time to roll over and go back to sleep for a couple of hours. The current system allows me to do just that. Things that take place at certain periods in the day occur at that time, more or less, whether I am in London, Houston or KL. The system ain't broke, though this proposal would make it so.

This is a tendency and not an absolute and therefore lacks the rigour we should expect from formal logic. It has no place in your proposed expansion of formal verbal logic. This is apparently valid for the current expression of the universe. We have no particular reason to assume it is applicable to the origin of the universe. Stipulating that it it does would be misleading and wrong. The speed of light is absolute. You even made implicit mention of this point. Logical fallacy arising from the use of two different definitions of universe. Sorry, I don't feel you have said anything new or interesting, or even correct.

You don't have servants! You poor bastard. How do you get meals?

If you are going to post can I suggest you try to remain within one or two A.U. of the topic.

Yes, really. What was your problem with npbreakthrough's post? Back to the main topic: would someone like to define race for me please. And when they do so I would be obliged if they could explain how useful the concept actually is, given that there can be more genetic differences between two people of the same race than between two of different races. That might then allow disucssion to proceed on the basis of facts rather than Victorian fantasy.

I'm answering as anyone. (I'm obviously not an expert.) The path of a light ray is bent within a gravitational field. The more intense the field the the light bends. Therefore in an intense gravitational field, the bending will prevent the light departing from that field.

Interesting thoughts. You have proposed two rather different things. In the first case an external influence disturbs the Earth. This would change its angular momentum, which might have long term consequences if the change were sufficiently large. The second is an internal influence, which cannot change the planet's angular momentum. The earthquakes that produced the Japaneses and Indonesian tsunamis were massive quakes, yet all they managed to do was shift the axis of rotation by a centimetre or so. So these are big events in terms of their effect on the Earth's surface and its inhabitants, but inconsequential in terms of the Earth as a whole. Did you mean to type things, not this? Is so, what things did you mean? If not, then I don't understand what you mean. Comets are very small compared with the Earth. We were hit by large objects in the distant past, but not since. Again. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with the idea. Perhaps you can explain further.

I take it that you aren't interested in learning.

I believe your "by the way" comments are an elegant and accurate assessment of the situation. They could usefully be copy and pasted into a hundred or more threads on the forum. Unfortunately the forum system only allows me to give the post a single + vote, so you'll have to make do with that and this smiley.

If we are reading the same sentence, then he is referring to placing the NEOs in lunar orbit to minimise the concerns over accidental Earth impact.

Inigo introduced a point that would need to be considered: the drop in value of the platinum consequent upon its massive increase in availability. He has naively failed to notice that de Beers successfully created an artificial demand for a mid range value product then sustained the artificially high price for decades by controlling supply. Two other points to be considered relating to the economics: Many more materials other than platinum would be available from the NEO. Not all of them would be worth the trouble of extraction and return to the Earth, but some of them certainly would. The ultimate decision on the economic value of the project would depend upon detailed estimates of platinum (and other) demand; consequent pricing; cost of implementing the project; the timescale of the project. There is insufficient data on each of these elements at present to say whether or not such a project would be viable. Technically I have one major concern. We know that stony asteroids are probably not much more than rubble piles. We suspect the irons are more cohesive, but at this point I don't think the matter is settled. If they also lack cohesion the use of nuclear devices to divert them would, as well, disrupt them. Robotic and manned visits to NEOs could settle this matter and would be an essential first step for the project. Politically this is not a challenging task if the issue of NEO cohesiveness has been dealt with. The loss of astronauts and cosmonauts in the space program has not halted the program. Over four hundred individuals have paid a deposit to make a sub-orbital flight on Virgin Galactic. Humans, despite recent tendency to wimpishness, are risk takers. (People also like to make money. If you tell everyone the price of their catalytic convertor is going to come down, they will love you.) In short, the political side can be handled.

I can't think of a single IRA terrorist who died during terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland or the UK mainland. I'm sure you remember The Troubles.

A good starting point would be to do extensive reading on superconductors so that you do understand them. You will then appreciate why making a high temperature superconductor is proving such a challenge to scientists and engineers. Until that point you are not asking for someone to help you make a room temperature superconductor, you are asking someone to do this for you. After all, what would your contribution be? http://www.superconductors.org/history.htm'>http://www.superconductors.org/history.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity http://www.superconductors.org/ And once you have your head wrapped around that, you could dip into recent research papers: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=160&q=superconductors&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_ylo=2010

It is not naive at all. You are ignoring two essential and distinct points. 1) I am writing a post on a forum, not a dissertation for a master's degree. Therefore I simplify, since misunderstandings can be addressed in subsequent posts, as is the case here. I thought it superfluous to explore, in detail, how the reaction to a contrary observation would depend upon the strength and character of the observation and the solidity of the theory, in quite complex ways. 2) However, a single observation may indeed falsify a theory. What you are talking about is the reaction to the observation. A valid observation that falsifies a theory does so as soon as that observation is made. At that point science has falsified the theory. It may take time, subject to the constraints referred to in 1) above, for that falsification to be accepted. Scientists are uncomfortable to work without any theory. The same is not true of science.