swansont

Bearing in mind that things were different in the past needs to be applied to all of the argument, though. I can imagine a feedback forcing haveing a different value if e.g. the albedo were different, which is probably the case when you rearrange the continents. Which means that showing that "CO2 are not as closely coupled as we think" is an invalid statement. It would mean that CO2 was not as strong a forcing in the past. Has anybody studied this and come up with a number? But if it is different, then all arguments based on the past values are moot. Showing a logarithmic relation on a linear graph is deceptive. Yes, it can be done, just like showing a linear relation on a log plot can be done. But it shouldn't be done — it's misleading.

One would hope that you would make the same compensation for the demodulation as for the frequency of the transmission.

If the question means can mirrors reflect IR, the answer is yes. Depending on the wavelength and mirror type you may need a special coating on the mirror to do so with high efficiency. Dielectric mirrors in my lab are coated for broadband NIR, basically from 700 - 1000 nm, for reflectivity >95% or so. We also have some gold mirrors that reflect reasonable well in that range. UV, on the other hand, is a lot tougher to do with high reflectivity. As gonelli points out, though, it won't make the invisible visible.

The long run isn't the pressing issue. How we deal with what happens over then next generation or two is of a more immediate concern.

Why must it be true? Matter isn't the same as energy. Conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries. Conservation of energy stems from time symmetry — the laws don't change in time.

If the measurement is of the parameter that is entangled. A different measurement need not break the entanglement.

This is a classic misdirection, using percentages to mask the argument, on top of the outright lying. First, I'll address the lie: Water is included in the models. To claim otherwise is blatant dishonesty. Water is not included in the list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases because it isn't considered one. Water concentration doesn't vary all that much, when looking that the global average — there is a limited amount the atmosphere can hold, and the residence time is short. Water vapor tends to condense on nucleation sits and fall back to the earth as macroscopic collections, as you are no doubt aware. The forcings that are considered are from anthropogenic gases that can change in concentration, not the natural ones that won't. Now, the misdirection: GHGs are dismissed because they only comprise a fraction of a percent of the whole, and the implication is that a small effect can be ignored, because the effect must be huge. Bull. Look at the numbers given by both iNow and bascule early in this thread, or from ref 1 of your link The forcings are of order a watt, while the sun gives us more than a kilowatt, per m^2. So the effects are less than a percent change in the incoming energy. But 1 Watt/m^2 is more than 10^14 Watts over the exposed surface of the earth. By expressing the numbers as a percentage, it makes a significant effect look insignificant. Now that we have the numbers, you have the task of explaining how trapping an extra 10^14 Watts will have no effect on the planet's temperature.

Yes indeed. (Squaring/rooting mis-key, or I looked at the wrong calculation) v = 0.99995c However, algebra aside, the concept is the important thing here. Nothing had to exceed c for this scenario to happen.

Some of us are trying to have an adult discussion here. If you can't keep it on-topic, please re-think your decision to post. Take the banter, etc., to general discussion

Thy system is nonlinear. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic (at least at the current concentrations) and blackbody radiation varies as T^4. So linearly increasing concentrations represent a diminishing increase in forcing, and rising temperatures radiate proportionally more energy. So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature.

Newtonian gravity is not "completely wrong." It is far less wrong than the Bohr model, which basically only gets the energy correct. Newtonian gravity is valid until you get into relativistic effects. The Bohr model is wrong as soon as you look at any parameter other than energy. A pull is a force and is not the same as energy. In neither case does the object in question have enough energy to escape; both represent bound systems. Increasing the energy does not necessarily move you further away. That assumes a circular orbit in the planetary case. And s orbitals overlap with the nucleus, and can have a higher energy than other orbitals.

No, that is the nature of the interpretations of QM. One problem being that interpretations are basically an attempt to explain QM using a framework of familiar, classical concepts. But there is evidence for these phenomenon. The problem with the QM/consciousness connection is that if you move the parameters around enough, as has happened here (the detector not being conscious vs. the detector being placed by a conscious being) then it's not falsifiable. The only way that we can confirm the result of an experiment is to look at it, so there will always be a path to where consciousness was involved. So if that's the contention, then game over. Not falsifiable = not science. But the framework where e.g. the electron "knows" that the interaction is from a detector which was placed by a conscious being vs. just being some stray field is not part of QM.

It's perfectly fine to model objects as points — e.g. in Gauss's law, you can show that you get the exact same answer as with the uniform sphere. However, I suppose that there are aspects to models you can make that would get you into trouble — using the infinite density of a point-object might be one. But as long as you don't try to exploit that, you should be fine. Similar to what Sisyphus said — there are ways of telling whether she is a witch an approximation is reasonable. Once it isn't, you can't use the results from your model.

Except that model is very wrong — "not completely correct" is underselling it. Electrons do not move in planetary orbits.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.

What about the little dipper — the one that actually has Polaris in it?

Are the Ghostbusters hiring? That's about the only job I can think of, unless it involves being a charlatan of some sort.

Perfectly rigid materials violate relativity. Once your conjecture breaks physical law, pretty much any behavior can be concluded.

Not after they explode, they aren't.

Being a federal employee doesn't mean what it used to. Is nothing sacred anymore? Will no-one stand up for traditional values? I guess the single employee is the only one being denied fair benefits/compensation now.

The story in the Telegraph says he was "knocked flying" by the impact. It's harder to reconcile that being caused by the meteorite impact, concentrated to a few square cm on the hand, than the blast from the crater creation.

Wrong. How would you differentiate between EM radiation that carried information and one that didn't, anyway? I can send you a photon that represents a "1" in a digital transmission, and I can send you an identical photon that doesn't. Why would the "1" photon travel slower?

You might want to rethink this. The nuclear force, by definition, doesn't affect electrons — it only affects nucleons (neutrons and protons) As to the original question, in general you don't need any force to keep something in motion — that's the natural state of things. You need a force to cause an acceleration, i.e. a change in velocity. For this reason and also for the one iNow mentions above, the question is ill-formed. If one were to ask, "why don't electrons collapse into the nucleus?" the answer will be from quantum mechanics: the energy of the system is quantized, and the lowest energy state is not one where the electron falls into the nucleus— it turns out you can't confine an electron on a space that small. So while the electron can be near or inside the nucleus (and on occasion interact with it via the weak force), it won't stay there.

Yes, there are. And while the specific instances of e.g. repeatability differ depending on the specifics of the type of science you are doing, all proper science has a certain degree of rigor. If that is missing, then you aren't doing science. You are possibly doing philosophy, as iNow has noted, or perhaps some other form of contemplation about the universe.

It's the gravitational potential, i.e. a deeper gravitational well, that has clocks running slower, not the pull itself (which is the slope of the well)