matty

Thanks, I'll play catchup, lessee...

Lmao~You can see why I dig this kid already, she's fun, eh? Jesus Christ, Tommy. lolol Holy mother of *God*, now that'sa grand entrance...shew, really a new angle from where we began on the BBS. Clinical my ass, lol.~lIar!

Seriously

Did you just put the little R by the brand Bengay?*lol* Too funny

Ohboy

lolol

Uhm, not all vacuums are created equal. Yes ~ Try a little housekeeping, a vacuum is only as powerful as it's engineered to be. And are you actually saying that two objects with differing mass would fall at an equivalent rate because they've been placed in a vacuum? ~Acceleration and gravity are totally in cahootz in the event of objects with differing mass having been dropped down a vacuum, side by side and all. That'd be to say a vacuum, any vacuum levels the playing field of mass, lol. Quitit

Heh, I love jello. Man, I could go for some jello right now...

Won't really matter so much on whether it's brittle if it isn't supposed to support any weight and just sits there; what is it's Function, a stationary model? I'm sorry, it's just a link is super helpful. I did try to google it but hm, I'd rather not guess with what I'm coming up with myself in the search, the Game Portal is a website, yes?

Dude, this was started in August--when was the answer on the horizon? ~suspense is meant for the short term, what'r you doing?

Wait, the above posters aren't quite right, there are nearly as many rewards to getting your work published as there are places to do it and that's because there are so many varied places and ways to do it. Pay or no, it's pretty nice to see your work in print, and in the event it really meant something to you, then, it follows it should be twice as nice. You can get a piece of your research, a technical paper or even just an opinion published in many places, from your local and state to your national newspapers to 'niche' ezines, (online magazines that are specifically tailored to your piece) and all the way to your own personal blogs or blogs you write for online sources by piecework, becoming a regular contributor. Many of them are for compensation, (some small pay), many of them consider it an even trade, your contribution (your piece of study/opinion) for the exposure they're giving you in return. Some of them just pay in 'contributor copies,' giving you several copies of your work in print.

So what say you, a little red wine, anyone? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2016279031_genefight22.html Drink, smoke, gain weight and still live a happy long life. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/genes-key-longevity-lifestyle-modifiable-behavior_n_917145.html But work hard, don't take things too lightly and don't get married. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/story/2011/02/5-myths-about-living-longer/44304898/1

Eeshk, hate to be a naysayer but omg, messing with what isn't broken, etc. Just my opinion but very risky business, this site even openly admits frequent complications. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266651/ I'd pay several visits to a Post surgical forum before ever signing on for any imperative, let alone unnecessary procedures of this magnitude, yikes... I found the link here... http://www.shortsupport.org/Health/Leg-Lengthening/ There are very limited post-op resources, I see, for you, which isn't encouraging. http://www.ehow.com/info_8580135_limb-lengthening.html

I'd have said get a new dermatologist too, wow.--Though a dermatogist is literally for skin related afflictions, not muscle or things that could be underlying, in which case a regular physician is more in order. ICY HOT is a miracle worker in balm form, not the lotions for persistent pain. The balm is a thick rub, goes on waxy so it stays on for long periods but in too sensitive areas it's a no-no, like the neck, for instance. Unless you apply a very light layer it'll burn. There are self adhesive, very affordable patches as well of this nature you can find in the same section as the rubs in your local dept store or pharmacy. An anti-inflammatory supplement for a day or two wouldn't hurt either. (Ibuprofin or naproxen)

Heavier objects fall faster, doubly so in a vacuum, the rate of acceleration being acted upon by another force. He means mass multiplied by gravity and introduces err talking about location, presumably the objects are being dropped from the same locale. A vacuum adds variable g-force, no constant there and would act to bring the denser object down even quicker than it had in the experiment with the lighter one without the added element of gravity. variable force, that is, from vacuum to vacuum

Right, a feedback and not a forcer, but I'm sure I came across a couple of references, once maybe on the NOAA website, saying it wasn't figured in because it wasn't a forcer and, in fact, you found it under a subheaded link entitled "Limits," i.e. natural limits in the equation built in from a broad view into the study. I'll see if I can't scare up a link, meanwhile, I was interested in thoughts on gas sinks figuring in but a moment, please to grab the Wikipedia reference... This is from the wiki carbon sink reference... http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586 "...Some climate models have already predicted such a slowdown in the oceans’ ability to soak up excess carbon from the atmosphere, but this is the first time scientists have actually measured it. Models attribute the change to depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and global warming-induced shifts in winds and ocean circulation. But the new study suggests the slowdown is due to natural chemical and physical limits on the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon—an idea that is now the subject of widespread research by other scientists..." Wait, another quote in there before you comment, please... "...For decades, scientists have tried to estimate the amount of manmade carbon absorbed by the ocean by teasing out the small amount of industrial carbon—less than 1 percent—from the enormous background levels of natural carbon. Because of the difficulties of this approach, only one attempt has been made to come up with a global estimate of how much industrial carbon the oceans held--for a single year, 1994..." I'm sure you see what I'm getting at, in addition, every place you look akin to this relies on as many "may be's", "could be's" and the like, in the end, truly you can't help but be left with a problematic formula, I should think, at least by any reasonable estimation... Physics is founded on anything but guesswork and neither, then, should the arithmetic our climate science is rooted in, or it isn't science. To further qualify the previous remarks, oceans being the largest carbon sink, are a single, tiny element in the grand scheme of mechanisms going into the climate models we're founding all this on, it's all built awful thinly to buy in so readily we ever again consider a US-centric Kyoto Protocol, that's my issue... Further yet, you can't help but introduce significant cumulative err by sampling from the microcosm in attempt to graft it in as a template for the whole, as they suggest in the above statement and as is widely recognized to be used in other relative methodologies in this all-important field of study. And it's very irresponsible to condone swans on tea...

dAngit, thanks, return with them later Lol, thanks, Panic, I get that a lot, but, yes, spot on. Indisposed a few hours wrangling healthcare issues...

Thanks I'd rather just hoped to be brought up to speed, honest; hadn't peeked in on the discussion in some time, I very much did wonder what sources people'r looking to today. Used to check out RealClimate at one time, I like to revisit NASA periodically, ScienceDaily, a couple of others I haven't had time to return to in a while until recently, one shouldn't take his eye off the IPCC too long... Anybody else? Lol, I hardly remember suggesting a link pOssibly proved a thing, what I did allude to was the strange dynamic such a supposedly backup-link centered forum should respond in the manner it does and from a moderator vantage, let's not lose perspective on reminders here to State IMO. But a bit of a delayed reaction lies in all that, now days ago, preferred to address exactly what I posted this morning, which Isn't, ironically, trolling someone with talk about how loathsome trolling is. --With that, I'm out of time but your twobits won't go unnoted. I think, Panic, you're overthinking my original aim which was to regenerate an old topic, surely covered here at length, so I knew it'd take some Doing, lol, in hopes of stirring anything having some Updated interest, if at all possible. Let us not become entrenched, then, in what Isn't the science. And, finally, I don't do blogs...

Lolol~a show of hands?

Got me there, certainly, and, anyway, it wasn't even that I meant to derail the thread to but more that troubling unknown area and a lot of it still leaves the climatescience community itself somewhere nOt the least bit in accordance with consensus. The list is topheavy. Some of what I did wonder about was more along the lines of these topics and their potential overall factoring into the warming equation... http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. --gas sinks http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html.--mars warming and age http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vZJG1-1ad38 --solar storms http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/feb06/noaa06-025.html. --cooling factors http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ --water vapor not being figured into the math (and I do see their forcers-methodology, read a bit about that, I'm saying it strikes me odd regardless of the rationale). Another small but troubling forinstance, just trying to gleen what part water vapor plays in the scheme of things, from all manner of credible sources you arrive at a seriously wide-ranging figure, running the gamut, and, again, I get we're not on a forcers/"drivers"-plane there~nonetheless... And I swore I gave you credence of being aware of the changeover to "CC", Greg, likewise, don't trip over your own two feet in the rush to pat yourself on the back. That is, you might give the rest of us credit for having some semblance of a notion on what an ice age would mean to us in basic math...