swansont

Not knowing the exact context, I'm not sure what the point of the problem is. Is this a Gaussian beam? The spot size is usually the 1/e size, and you can get the amplitude from that. The time comes into it because a shorter pulse has a higher intensity. 1 Joule in 1 sec is 1 Watt, but 1 Joule in 100 fs is 10 PetaWatts. That most definitely affects the field strength. You've used the pulse energy rather than the power, which is why your units aren't working. Also, mJoule is millijoule, but that only affects the magnitude of the answer.

You are free to start a thread in the Speculations section to pursue this Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's an optical illusion.

Please use the thread here This is a duplicate, in the wrong section.

The attitude presented here is unacceptable. You are asking for the benefit of others' time and expertise. The least you can do is ask politely and provide a modicum of clarification when it is requested

Just in case you miss the point of D H's post, you have the space twin losing his hand at 50 but returning to earth at 25. I don't think you have laid out a scenario that has anything to do with relativity.

But as this is a calculation, all one can conclude is that you can do a calculation incorrectly by not including all relevant terms.

Are you unable to click on the link I provided?

You spent 30 years in the field and don't recognize the similarities between a solenoid an an antenna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)#Mutual_impedance_and_interaction_between_antennas

You are (or appear to be) simultaneously claiming that your effect is seen (or should be seen) in an RF EM signal, and that you can ignore mutual inductance because it is not a DC effect.

Telling us what you posted elsewhere adds nothing to the conversation. If that's all you have, then there is no reason to keep this discussion open. Proof by repeated assertion is not valid.

If you want to discuss your thesis do it here.

Am I to understand that you are proposing that "electromagnetic field energy of VHF radio system" is DC?

At this point I refer you back to D H's posts where he asks you to read up on transformers.

But a valid frame is not the same as an inertial frame. If you are in a non-inertial frame, you have to add (fictitious) forces in order to have Newton's laws hold, and you lose the restrictions related to the speed of light.

One's first 30 posts are outside of politics, meaning they are in subject areas that are not subjective in nature. Your opportunities to garner negative reputation are pretty much limited to bad information or a problematic attitude, neither of which bodes well for what might happen should the poster be able to post in politics.

The paper's main objection seems to be about the "reality" of the zero-point fluctuations, rather than the validity of that method. It confirms what I said in my previous post: there is more than one way of deriving it.

In a way, it is discrimination. Really it's more along the lines of profiling. Since politics tends to invoke some emotional responses, we'd rather have people who have demonstrated some level of restraint before they get to post there. It saves wear and tear on the moderators, who, BTW volunteer their/our time. Any time spend doing moderator duties is time not spent discussing the topics of our choice. If I didn't get the chance to discuss some physics here, but instead was only moderating, I'd stop visiting, and I suspect all the moderators feel similarly with respect their areas of interest. So it's a policy of necessity.

I suspect that those who abuse the system will not escape staff notice for long. It's not meant to be a system for personal vendetta; those who lash out with personal invective in posts tend to either shape up or be shown the door. One hopes for similar results from abusers of the rep system.

As the fomenter has been banned, I have closed this thread.

Way too small of an effect. Gravitational perturbations are usually much too small to worry about. Tidal interactions are even smaller.

How do you establish cause? Could there be a genetic expression that influences behavior that also manifests itself with physical changes, independent of the cranial attributes? What about cultural biases in the samples, where a physical attribute is treated differently by different groups? Also: a sample size of 150 is too small by at least a factor of 10, and probably a factor of 100. You have 16 types. The possibility of getting fewer than 10 of a type is way too small to be statistically meaningful. If your effect is small, you need a large sample. edit: now that I think some more, racial/cultural differences is the test you want. If the cause is physiological, there should be a difference that crosses cultural boundaries.

This is fatally flawed. If there are any commonalities due to other causes, these will cause correlations independent of facial characteristics. You can't ignore this, as you have proposed. You need a falsification method that's valid.

Already been asked

Then I don't see how what you're proposing is science. If you're proposing that there is a cause that is physical, you absolutely have to be able to distinguish it from the part that is mental.

We generally frown upon the evolution-creation discussions because of the blatant strawmen that are invariably presented in the attempts to discredit evolution. You've already presented several. It needs to stop.