swansont

Various types of glass transmit IR to some extent, as do other transparent media like sapphire. IR is EM radiation, so it will bend. However, the index of refraction is typically wavelength-dependent, so the focal length will be different.

So how do you explain the spike at 3.5 and 12.5, when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction? The lack of a signal at 4? The weak signal at 7-8, as compared to the signal at 8-9? Why does the radiation dose rate (on your site) not match up with the ionization curve?

But you found it worth mentioning both texts. Then what's the point?

It's not your choice to make, really, if you want to communicate effectively. If what I mean by mass is different from what you mean by mass (or whatever term you wish to choose), then the discussion grinds to a halt right there. Common terminology is like the "handshaking" the fax machine (or any other communication protocol) does at the beginning of the transmission. Without it you are lost. You are Humpty Dumpty, saying, "When I use a term, it means whatever I choose it to mean — "nothing more, and nothing less," and then it's impossible to discern what was actually said, because none of the words are meaningful to anyone else. And you'll run into the problem wherever you go.

It's the same author, so these are not two independent instances, and besides that, it doesn't matter (as it were). A handful of people using a particular terminology does not make it the standard.

The images you posted were hotlinks, meaning that they will only appear here as long as the originals are available on the web. If the original images are yours, then you can take them down yourself. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

What is your fundamental thesis - that it's real? Thanks, we already know. That it's electromagnetic? No, it's not. The tides affect all the water, and more, not just one of the charges of ionic material dissolved in it. The solid earth feels tides, too.

What of you don't know rho(x,y,z,t)? There isn't a unique mapping between rho and J.

Is matter created in fission? Same number of neutrons, protons and electrons before and after.

It's not a combination of the two, since they attempt to describe the same thing. But the underlying idea you present is "the explanation of gravity is Newton and Einstein." Wow. Thanks for the tip.

No, these are faked, in what looks to be just an excuse for some boys to rub each other with balloons. Strange fetish, that. The first objection is that all of the target items are insulators, not conductors. There shouldn't be a spark. The second is that there isn't nearly enough energy to do what is being claimed. This is reminiscent of the cell phones popping popcorn video from a while back, which I blogged about. Appying that to the popcorn "magic" here, and correcting the numbers from my post (I had an assumption that was off) — it takes tens of Joules of energy to pop a single kernel of popcorn. The energy contained in a capacitor is 1/2 CV^2, and the human body has a capacitance of several hundred picofarads. Let's assume 2000 pf and a kiloVolt of potential difference. That's a milliJoule of energy, and it assumes a complete discharge, which only happens if the target is a grounded conductor. With the 2000 pf capacitance, you'd need 100 kV of potential to get 10 Joules, perhaps popping a single kernel of popcorn. A 5mm spark requires about a 16 kV potential difference edit to add: the original video is an ad, so consider that in the mix.

We would see the events as occurring faster.

Has he been positively IDed? I mean, "That looks like Michael Jackson" doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

No, as I mentioned before, you can't do this. You would then be spontaneously transferring thermal energy from cold to hot. The entropy cops will be unhappy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How is the blackbody radiation from the radiator not heat flow from a difference in temperature?

I don't think I've ever claimed to be an intellectual.

[KingArthur] A duct. [/KingArthur] i.e. physically channel the hot air. However, it depends on what you mean by "concentrate." If the radiator is at 350K, you won't get air that's hotter than that, you'll just get more of it. But that's true of a lens system, too — you can't get a spot hotter than the source (Brightness theorem). If you could, you would be able to spontaneously transfer heat from a cold object to a hot one, in violation of the already-mentioned second law of thermodynamics. If you want to get something hotter, you have to use your energy differently and come up with a better heat source.

For an event that's happening over the span of a generation or two, you can only select for existing genetic difference. So for some species there might not be an existing adaptation on which selection pressure can be exerted. Humans already occupy diverse climates, so the threat to us is one of lifestyle rather than extinction, i.e. some lives threatened, but not all.

I would take it to mean from the starting point, but have to observe that it's poorly worded. It should explicitly tell you relative to whom you are making the measurement.

Looking at the speeds is probably not as helpful, since that adds more variables to the discussion. The question is about kinetic energy, and the answer should become apparent once the meaning of temperature is given.

Do a little back-of-the envelope calculation. Boltzmann's constant is of order 10^-4 eV/K, so thermal energy, even for something hot (1000K-ish), is significantly less than an eV. If the potential difference is even as small as a Volt, the energy from the apparatus is already noticeably larger than the thermal energy. 100V or 1000V? Of course it will look like it's moving in a straight line.

What is the definition of temperature?

Displacement is a vector giving you the direction and distance from a reference point. The important thing here is specifically what is being asked: are you looking for the displacement from the reference point, or the displacement from the starting point?

You could do this test, but we've already established that the particles under consideration have no charge.

But the energy need not be radiation. You can convert kinetic energy, too, as occurs in any particle collider.

That will probably make little difference in the answers, though, and we frown on posting the same question in multiple areas of the board. I don't think the physicists who post here limit themselves that strictly. I suspect many look at the "new posts" and go from there. If need be, a post can be moved to a more appropriate area.