swansont

This is the point it becomes a political, rather than scientific, issue. The issue at hand is whether politics can decide whether 5% is correct, not whether it is acceptable.

One possibility is to use the chain rule; one can rewrite acceleration in a Cartesian system [math]a = \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt} = v\frac{dv}{dx}[/math]

Looking at the data in a different way is still looking at the data, though. Yes, and that's the politics aspect of it. But not heeding the findings of science is not the same thing as saying the science is false.

But all science is consensus, so I see no reason to differentiate Global Warming. Agreement is not universal; there are scientists who disagree with evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, and other parts of science, but we move forward because there is a consensus that the established models are correct, despite the objections of a few. One big difference is that the acceptance of most parts of science doesn't require much in the way of government action, but that doesn't affect the validity of the science. Social Darwinism was not science. Social Darwinism was ideology attempting to use science to justify itself.

It's not? Can you expand on this?

In that case, work is being done on it. Work is also energy transfer.

But science gets overturned or modified by data, not by decree. This is an attempt to apply a different standard to the problem, but you can't legislate natural law.

Some scientists feel this way. However, this is not a question of physics/science, as such.

Heat is energy transfer. But it can be a property, as in kinetic energy. An object in motion has 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy. That is not being transferred anywhere.

We are discussing physics here and only physics. Do I make myself understood?

[math]F_T - m_eg = -m_ea[/math] [math]-F_T + m_Cg = -m_Ca[/math] ————————————— [math](m_C - m_e)g = -(m_e + m_C)a[/math] multiply by -1 [math](m_e - m_C)g = (m_e + m_C)a[/math] LaTex makes it easier to look at, IMO Learning to manipulate the symbols and do algebra is a powerful tool, and a skill that needs to be mastered. Failure to do so will result extra work in a lot of problems, when you aren't able to cancel terms, which leads to a whole host of potential errors.

Yes. The measurement depends on the frame of the observer.

I know you can make a standing wave laser cavity, and basically put in an arbitrary amount of energy, up until a mirror (or some other physical part) fails. I'm a scientist, so I follow the evidence. Evidence will change my mind. Appeal to ridicule and argument from personal incredulity will not.

OK. But there's no need to link to the other forum

Are you linking to your own work elsewhere, or copying someone else's posts?

Whether you call it a planet or what number you assign it is semantics (X can mean "unknown" rather than "10"). No need for it. End of (rational) discussion, pretty much. (Many Planet X enthusiasts are whackos; on the upside, it includes me in a huge conspiracy.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is this your work, or are you copying someone else's post?

Refracted, not diffracted. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not sure, but this isn't a physics question.

Not so much a change as a difference. The pitch or length is different in another frame.

AFAIK there's nothing in the bill about covering abortions. "There is no mandate in the [House] bill...[it] is actually neutral as to whether a federal plan, a new government or public plan, would cover abortion services or whether the government would require private plans to cover it to qualify as a basic plan. It's neutral. It doesn't say anything." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5234637.shtml

Sure it does. The transformation does not work, i.e. you cannot transform into that frame, ergo the frame is not valid. Any subsequent discussion is moot. We don't have physics equations that describe what happens in that frame.

I read it ages ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Yes I am. Ever notice how light can be bright or dim? A larger or smaller number of photons. At any given point. Probably best thought of with a coherent source, in this case, so a laser or photons in a power buildup cavity, so they are all in phase — that way you don't have some distractions to worry about.

You can't move a box with mass at c; the transform diverges, so you can't even discuss the hypothesis. A photon's energy is all kinetic energy. There is no internal energy to it.

insane_alien has already given the photon as an example; any particle with integer spin (thus following Bose-Einstein statistics) can coexist with another particle at the same point. Circular reasoning. Try again.

I suspect what you mean by "physical" is incorrect/inconsistent with how everyone else means it. Imagine you have a spring, having 100 coils with a pitch of 1 cm (i.e. the coils are 1 cm apart) so it is 1 m long. If the spring is moving such that gamma =2, the coils will have a pitch of 1/2 cm and the spring will be 0.5 m long. If gamma = 10, the pitch will be 1 mm, and the spring will be 10 cm long. However, in all cases, there is no physical compression of the spring — it is not under any tension, stress or strain. That's what an uncompressed spring looks like in that frame.