swansont

[math]\Delta T[/math] = temperature difference. Units are often specified with given maximum temperature difference they can achieve

So the second system has a bar which sits atop the door frame? The picture isn't clear. It looks like all your weight is on the trim for the iron gym. The power bar has your weight pressing against the wall; you could alleviate the problem by mounting a steel plate where the prongs go, to reduce the pressure.

Tom's going to have to do that in a post, just to prove this wrong.

It wouldn't feel a net force, but that's not the same as saying it wouldn't become polarized. That's what happens to a dielectric — the dipoles align to partially cancel the field.

A perfect blackbody 6400 km in radius at 300 K surface temperature will radiate 2.36e17 Watts. If the earth has a specific heat capacity of 1 kJ/kg-K and is uniformly at 300 K (which it isn't), it would take 3 months to radiate away that much energy — if the radiation rate stayed constant, which it won't because it varies as T^4, and ignores the time it would take to conduct heat to the surface. This assumes no incoming radiation at all. All this tells you is an exceedingly conservative lower bound, and is more indicative of a time constant for a power-law decay, which would be measured in months or years or longer, depending on how bad the assumptions were and what is meant by "freeze completely."

True gravitational acceleration is 9.8144 m/s^2. Perceived gravity must be less (9.8144-0.0339) because of the rotation requiring there be a centripetal acceleration. If the planet were rotating fast enough to have the centripetal acceleration be 9.8144 m/s^2, one would be in orbit, and feel no acceleration (freefall)

A slight correction here — the battery is analogous to the gas tank, not the gas itself. A big issue is transport of the fuel, as I calculated in this thread: you can pump gas at ~10 MW because of the energy density, and there's no infrastructure to recharge batteries at anywhere near this rate. So there is a serious drawback on refill times, or range for a given refill duration. If you can do a battery swap, things improve. The storage issue is that batteries are bigger and much heavier, and this also impacts performance.

Any particle can have kinetic energy.

One must note that the particles only have the spins when you measure them — you can't say the particle always had that spin. That's a huge deviation from classical thinking.

That's also to take advantage of the rotational speed, so you need to launch less maneuvering propellant, which I believe is a larger issue.

Yes, you should. But I think one could make the argument that you're really measuring some other physical quantity in whatever apparatus you are using. It ties back into what constants you have defined and which ones you measure.

This is something that could be tested and modeled. Has anyone done it?

Little-known made-up-fact: The city was actually originally called Bostont by the locals, with their thick accents (actually sounded like "Bahstahnt). It was the Bostont "E" party, (Bahstahnt E Pahty) but when the historians heard the story and wrote it down, it became the Boston Tea party, and made up the rest, as they often do. It would have been the "U" party, but they were worried PETA would think that they were going to toss ewes into the harbor, and oppose them. Besides, U's were in short supply — "E" is a much more common vowel.

How so? The electron's rest mass is a constant.

One of the underlying points here is that there are phenomena that can be explained (semi)classically, but are a whole lot simpler once you move to quantum physics. "I can explain that phenomenon with classical physics" is insufficient, and not the same as "classical physics gives the best explanation of that phenomenon" (where "best" has some tie-on with Occam)

Note that morp's Nature of Light thread is currently on-topic and well within accepted physics, by approaching the question from a different angle, so interested parties should go there.

Photon antibunching is tough to explain classically. Atoms don't radiate continuously — they emit the energy in quantized amounts. Kimble, Dagenais, and Mandel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 - 695 (1977) The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation, antibunching is understandable only in terms of a quantized electromagnetic field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom undergoing a quantum jump.

OK, let's recast the question. Temperature has risen by somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 ºC in the last ~ century, and almost 0.5 ºC in the last several decades, depending on the exact starting point you use. (The exact number is probably unimportant for this discussion). If anthropogenic CO2 has had a negligible effect, where did the energy come from to account for the temperature rise? Since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we can model its effects, the prior question is the one that needs to be answered to gain any traction in the "it's natural variation" discussion, and I haven't seen a lot that isn't easily debunked. We know it's not the sun — that's been studied pretty extensively. So it has to be some other source where energy could be stored/released. And the problem is that if you have a valid answer to this, it probably is a good candidate for the answer to "where did the energy go?"

That's the point, though, of why dams are used — more power. I don't think anyone has claimed that there is no ecological impact.

Radiant heat should not be equated with infrared. Something at everyday temperatures radiates strongly in the IR. But of it's hotter, it radiates strongly in the visible (like the sun, or a stove burner or incandescent light bulb), and if it's cooler it will radiate in the microwave/RF. It's a spectrum, though — even very hot things radiate some in the RF. So after the earth cooled in this scenario, it would be radiating at longer and longer wavelengths.

It generates about 150 kW. A big dam can generate more than a thousand times more power.

Yes, you create a magnetic field — that's how an electromagnet works.

I assumed we were ignoring that, but if not, then it's a killer for the original proposition.

One can infer that the gravitational term is small if the body has a negligible gravitational potential, as is true of an artificial satellite. But the moon's gravitational potential can't be ignored.

Yes, but it's still unanswered because known processes don't account for the magnitude of the effect.