swansont

I'm not. I was pointing out where they had been placed. Yes, I understand that this is your position. I'm saying that they do not have an equal basis for the arguments. Tax cuts do not have the same effect that spending does.

Bounce light off of it would be one way. I thought you were going to provide us with evidence from a physical experiment.

Again, I will ask you for a citation.

(emphasis added) If you refer to my answer, you must agree that I answered the question. So, logically, I could not have avoided answering it. What there some other question I missed? You asked "Why?" and I answered: I think it's arguing in bad faith; it's rude. Why do I have to agree with you, or you with me? I'm just stating my opinion. I consider it to be rude, and if you don't, hey — I don't really care. But yes, if I am going to argue a point, I don't want the target to be moving. And you are wrong that my target is a person. My target is most decidedly NOT the person. It's the argument. I don't agree or disagree based on who makes a post.

! Moderator Note Off-topic "lunarorigin" link moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53374-an-odd-take-on-the-earth-moon-system/page__pid__577225#entry577225

The stability of bound neutrons is well understood, and actually quite simple: their decay is energetically forbidden. A neutron decays into a proton (along with an electron and antineutrino). A free neutron can do this because it has more mass than the products and energy is released. In a nucleus, the energy of the protons and neutrons is quantized. If there are no proton energy levels available in the nucleus, the neutron cannot decay.

Time passes slower in a gravity well or when at some speed. In your own (rest) frame, far from a gravity well, is as fast as time will pass. All of this relative to some other observer, of course.

You were talking about the effect on the recession, not the deficit. Where have I said that tax cuts and spending have the same economic impact?

But this is science, and so what we do is test this idea. We find that neither electric nor magnetic fields do this to photons.

I think I need a citation for that. The global temperature cooling anomaly in the past 500M years is less than 3 ºC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png The mean surface temperature now (which is the baseline) is 13.9 ºC http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#mean

Isn't "taking a problem and using that problem to increase control over the people" precisely what McCarthy did?

! Moderator Note ProcuratorIncendia, if you have a problem with a post, please report it (lower left of the post box, yellow triangle icon). In the report you can explain what you feel is offensive, and then let the staff deal with it. edit: in-thread discussion tends to derail the thread, as it has done here; I have removed those posts

Is there something you want to know that googling/wikipedia articles don't tell you?

So McCarthy was a Socialist?

It's not the same argument. Government spending ≠ tax cuts Of course, the whole thing could be a sham. It's politics. It wouldn't be the first time spurious arguments were used to support an action, when the real agenda was different. People don't want their taxes raised, so they claim it will hurt businesses and cost jobs. But since I still don't see an answer to the question of how $3,000 creates/costs a job, I'm leaning toward smokescreen.

The transfer of angular momentum to the moon is due to tidal coupling with the earth, and the strength of that has a lot to do with the configuration of the continents and oceans. You asked a loaded question. It seems that you want the answer to be yes, but the answer is no.

It would depend on the manufacturing cost and how long the panels last, because it's not just energy conversion efficiency that matters, it's the overall cost efficiency. The target point is about $1 per Watt. At that point, if the unit could produce an average of 3W-h of energy per day and last 10 years, it makes 10.95 kW-h of electricity, which has a retail cost of a little above $1 (in the US, using $.10 per kWh). An improvement on either longevity or efficiency makes it more cost-effective. Efficiency is probably the tastier carrot, though, since it moves the break-even point of the investment earlier.

Mammals* have roughly the same number of heartbeats, on average. About 1.5 billion *unless they have access to healthcare and good drinking water But this has nothing to do with relativity

I'm not sure where you got v = λn. The left-hand side has units of speed, and the right-hand side has units of length. The equation is meaningless, and can tell you nothing. So yes, you have got it wrong.

Since I was the one suckered in, I vote for Poe.

To the extent that what WL is doing bothers me (overreaching the "Pentagon Papers" flag Assange drapes himself in), I think what the US government is doing in response is even more disturbing. I think of this less as the cyberwar of 2010 as much as I think it's an act in the reincarnation of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, with terrorism being the item used to cause fear, and an excuse by the government to do unconstitutional things "for our own good," and the attempt to stamp out WL is one part of the play.

Is there any independent, objective evidence that this is true? Any evidence that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were the actual cause of creating jobs? I seem to recall that it had no effect on the baseline rate. I see statements to the effect that moving the tax bracket up will kill jobs creation, and I have to ask where the hell those jobs have been for the last 7 years. If you make $300,000 (filing singly), your tax increase is ~$3,000. How many jobs can you create for $3,000? I get the feeling the republicans were offering a pig in a poke, and nobody actually bothered to get a look at the pig.

Not being able to control them as precisely means they are not studied as extensively, but researchers have a of of ingenuity, so there has been research done on them. Neutrons and protons also interact via the strong and weak nuclear forces, and of course via gravity, so there's a lot of study that can be done with nuclei. The fact that neutrons don't interact electrostatically probably makes some experiments easier or produce results you couldn't get with protons.

! Moderator Note It's time to stop this. Argument from incredulity and a wikianswers post don't really match up against peer reviewed articles and years of study.

They are neutral, which means they won't respond to an electric field. But they do have a magnetic moment, which meant they can be magnetically confined if they are of low enough energy. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6765/abs/403062a0.html