swansont

An interaction becoming small because of its natural behavior, e.g. r gets large for a 1/r^2 interaction, is something that can be described with science. But simply ignoring the term when it isn't small — turning it off — is not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Quite so. I find the concepts of energy and momentum quite useful as well. Charge, entropy, magnetic fields … physics is chock full of useful man-made concepts.

The previous thread on this topic died of science anemia. It was locked, so restarting it without permission — even without nebulous threats — is not permissible.

Heat death is not the same as all interactions stopping.

Time is what is measured by a clock. What a clock measures is the phase of an oscillation. Ad ajb has already noted, the above is a mathematical description. What you are asking is metaphysics. Case in point. When your scenario requires exploring results of physically impossible scenarios, the odds are pretty good you've left the realm of science discussion.

I think a lesson here is that intent is never as clear as we think it is. The creationist petitions and Project Steve immediately came to my mind, before I even read iNow's response. To me it's a pretty clear parallel. While your opinion may be that it's a weak response, given that you chose to respond the best (and probably most appropriate) response would have been to point out why you felt it was weak, or to clarify your intentions. Given your reaction, I have no idea what your intentions were in asking "So I come here to ask. What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?" or what kind of responses you expected. When you ask people what they think, you have to be prepared for a wide spectrum of responses. Complaining about an opinion that was unanticipated or differs with your own? You are the one who opened the door. Caveat Emptor. Time to give this particular melodramadic sub-plot a rest, methinks.

It's the same problem that people have with some of those who are skeptical of/deny AGW. But that's a discussion for elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge

Science fiction doesn't have to make sense, though good science fiction often does.

For there to be an explanation, you have to first establish that there is a phenomenon. If dowsers cannot do better than chance when tested, then there is no phenomenon to explain.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

The laws of physics being the same at all locations is equivalent to conservation of momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications

Look at the capitalized phrase: constant flow rate. You have the same number of particles (so the same mass) moving at the same speed — the kinetic energy is constant from the parameters of the example. pressure: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/press.html

How would the particle get there?

F = GMm/r^2 In the calculation of force, both masses are already used, so you'd get the wrong answer if you used the mass of the whole system and the mass of the planet. It's multiplication, not addition in this equation, so if you are going to propose a contribution from each mass, shouldn't you be using [math]\sqrt{G}[/math] ?

Vapor or liquid? AFAIK the liquid spectrum shifts the resonances to longer wavelengths

You asked for opinions about the petition. It's not as if it were brought up by someone else as a distraction from other discussion.

h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and E is energy hc=1240 eV nm So that means the wavelength needs to be 1000 nm or shorter, which covers all the visible spectrum and gets you into the near-IR. This doesn't seem right — the electrolysis energy includes breaking off the Oxygen but also forming an O2 molecule, and happens in the presence of other molecules. This calculation http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081107045616AAfd4jT says that you need about 5.25 eV to split off a hydrogen, which happens at 237 nm or shorter

You brought up the petition, and specifically asked what was to be made of it.

Electrolysis takes about 1.25 eV wavelength = hc/E

You need to polarize the light, and filter the light based on the polarization.

2.95 ≠ 2.86 2.94 ≠ 2.86 No reason to include the planet mass in the equation, but even if you did the numbers are still not equal. If the sun were to somehow be replaced by a black hole with equal mass, the planets would not fall into it — the gravity experienced by the planets would be exactly the same. The Schwarzschild radius, per the equation, would be 2.95 km.

No, it's an apt description of what happens when a collection of particles have kinetic energy but there is no overall center-of-mass motion. So atoms in a lattice actually vibrate, and in a molecule there is also vibration of the constituent molecules.

But they are not hypothetical. They are theoretical, in the sense that they cannot have just any properties whatsoever; rather the theory predicts what properties they will have. Knowing those properties tells the physicists where to look for them. The Higgs is spin-0 and has mass. The graviton is spin-2 and massless. They are different. ——— Bulletin boards and blog posts are not really references to which one gives much weight, unless one can actually establish the credibility of the source. And when you post links to discussion that contradict your position, one might question why you'd even bother.

Some make anti-snark-y references, and that can get quite messy when they annihilate. Perfect. And it makes all this discussion on-topic.

I didn't take it to be. I was agreeing that your expectations were reasonable.