swansont

Argument from incredulity is inherently flawed, and it doesn't matter whether you use it to argue for ID or against it. And "I wouldn't have designed it that way" is basically argument from incredulity.

What is "time decay" and what does ITR stand for?

There are physical limits on the ways that this energy transfer can be modified. And you are ignoring them, which is why you can get the answer you want, rather than the answer nature will give you — that the receiver will not heat up. On the contrary, I did get it. What I am telling you is that it is not enough to merely state that you will have parallel rays at some point. It needs to be physically possible to get parallel rays with the system you have described, and you haven't shown that. This is the difference between science and science fiction (or art).

Originally Posted by swansont If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect. What of them? As I said, moving the atoms happens because that's the easiest way of doing it, but it is not the basis of the measurement. If you could accomplish the free precession and interrogation all in the same place, you would. But that's not technologically feasible — if you did it that way, you'd get a crappy clock, but it would still be a clock. So you move the atoms to a more appropriate region. Motion isn't the reason the clock works, it's just incidental, and makes the clock work better. Fountain clocks are better than beam clocks, because the atoms are allowed to have less motion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Your science dictionary is most certainly not a comprehensive source of knowledge.

That's an excellent observation. The change in mass from fusion is indeed a small fraction of the overall mass, and gives you the total energy released from the star. And since Baryonic matter is a small fraction of the dark matter needed to explain observed behavior, photon from these stars can't comprise dark matter.

Same thing goes for magnetic fields. They are caused by moving charges (which can simply be from a change in frame of reference), but they are not made up of them, as Klaynos has also explained. Electrons move within a wire. The magnetic field they create exists outside of the wire, where there are no electrons. Thus, the field cannot be made up of electrons.

If you are looking for a credulous audience, you came to the wrong place. If you have a claim, especially one contrary to science that has many, many years of evidence to buttress it, you need to back it up with evidence of your own. It's nothing personal, mind you. That's just how the game is played.

The problem that you run into is that you can't gather as much radiation as you think you can, and/or you can focus it down the way you have shown. If you get a net transfer of energy between the two systems, I think you have violated at least one of those restrictions. For example, if you try to use a parabolic dish to transport the radiation, you can't assume you have a point source, which means that the radiation from the extended source isn't going to be parallel, and some of the energy will reflect back onto the emitter, representing a reduction in net power transmitted. Second (and this is mentioned in the phase space argument link), you can't focus the radiation down to an arbitrarily small size — even though you show that in one of your drawings, it isn't possible.

One stark difference between Stewart and Limbaugh is that Stewart makes no bones about the fact that he's giving you fake news. Limbaugh, OTOH, makes stuff up and tries to peddle it as the truth.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," he said. "On the contrary, it increases the problem." One really shouldn't lie about such things. Especially if one promotes one's self as a moral leader, and promoting the lie will end up killing people. The number that PZ Myers quotes is an 80% reduction being associated with condom use. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_pope_is_an_evil_quack.php

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect. If you are referring to the electron itself, I ask what motion? The electron has no classical trajectory, so it is incorrect to say it is in motion, or that this motion is the basis of the measurement. The clock measurement is due to a spin orientation transition, but spin is not a physical property, it is intrinsic angular momentum. To say that this represents motion is to impose a classical picture on a quantum-mechanical effect.

Poe's Law is real. Satire and parody in this area are indistinguishable from sincere positions. Which is it?

One thing certainly has changed. The president is no longer a Republican (a shift true also of the congressional makeup). Of course, that has been true for only ~6% of the time in question here. But in areas where you can make apples-to-apples comparisons, like corruption scandals and the like, has Stewart given the left a pass? I'd say no.

OK, I have a moment to expand on my earlier statements. I think the relevant concept here is the brightness theorem — it is not possible to increase the spectral radiance of light by passive optical devices. i.e. things don't get brighter (by he physics definition) without amplification, which requires energy input. This means, for example, that you will never be able to get an image of the sun to be at a temperature above ~6000 degrees. No matter what optics you use, and how much light you gather. Your system appears to violate this, but that's because you haven't accurately modeled it. A careful reconstruction will show that the amount of energy passing in each direction has to balance. The weakness of thought experiments is that you have to think of everything, correctly, in order for them to work. Not doing that is the hobgoblin that haunts all perpetual motion seekers (and many relativity bashers, among others). If you have a self-consistent set of rules, you cannot use them to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency. If you find one, it means you have made a mistake in applying them. The fight may not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the smart way to bet. The physics version is of that is that the laws of thermodynamics win, every time. Edit to add: Another take on this: phase space is conserved. This ties in with the "accurate modeling" in which you appear to have assumed you can concentrate the radiation in a way that isn't possible. http://www.av8n.com/physics/phase-space-thin-lens.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, there is, as I've discussed. It's not a matter of engineering. In principle it violates physical law in a few ways.

But I think you have made some assumptions about the geometry that are unphysical, which lead you to overestimate the amount of power you can actually deliver.

Atomic clocks measurements are not based on motion. Motion exists, because motion cannot be eliminated. Less motion gives a better result. Then don't say that what you present is fact.

If the company is bankrupt, from where will the money come to pay these retirement packages? What is there to loot?

For the answer I second Klaynos's excellent suggestion of Feynman's QED. Photons are the force-carriers, and the understanding of those interactions is the basis of the electromagnetic force. ("charge is transmitted" is an awkward expression from a physicist's point-of-view). Fields and field lines are a conceptual tool that help us understand some of the effects. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Electrons most definitely do NOT comprise the electric field. comprise = "to be made up of" and you have electric fields where there are no charges. QED. (The other QED)

And what do you get when you take the reciprocal of 1.67x10^-27 kg? (it really should be 1.66, though)

The funny (?!) thing is that the republicans are blaming the current administration for this, even though the bonus contracts were created in 2008, and there was no negotiation on this point in the original bailout of AIG. Other Republican leaders were quick today to slam the Obama administration — namely the Treasury Department — in recent weeks. “Where were they?” Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, demanded, when $30 billion in additional funds was handed out to A.I.G. just a few weeks before bonus payments issued last Friday. “It’s shocking that they would — the administration would come to us now and act surprised about these contracts. Why didn’t they ask the question two weeks ago, before they gave them $30 billion?” Mr. McConnell asked. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/bonuses-bailouts-and-blame/ Where were they, indeed. Pot. Kettle. Black. Both administrations should have asked, "So, you're not going to reward failure by handing out bonuses, right?" I like the tax idea, but I suspect they can only recover what hasn't been paid out yet, or is the IRS exempt from ex-post-facto changes? I also read that Andy Cuomo (NY Atty Gen) is investigating for fraud, on the basis of the company promising bonuses when it didn't have the money.

Everything is radiant, emitting something like a blackbody spectrum (depending on its emissivity). The human body, for instance, radiates somewhere between 500-1000 Watts (but absorbs a lot too; the difference is around 100 Watts, assuming an average-ish adult) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs to the OP, just from a quick scan: units of power are Watts, not Watts/sec You have use the area of the horn, but that is not representative of the area that's actually emitting thermal radiation. I suspect there are other geometry mistakes, too, in your scenario.

The rotation will get a lot harder once you put a load on it. How much you get out will depend on what you're using to drive it. You'll get somewhat less electrical energy out than mechanical energy in, of course.

Before you can identify intelligent design, you'll have to identify unintelligent design. Drops of water are spherical. Bulk liquid water conforms to the shape of its container. Clouds sometimes look like bunnies. Are these examples of intelligent design? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you empirically test this to confirm that it's true? ——— Note that we are discussing the scientific case for a designer. Participants should not view this as an opportunity to derail the discussion and discuss other things.

They aren't flowing between the N and S poles, as such. The virtual photons are the force carriers. The field lines would be more representative of contour lines on a map telling you how hilly it is; where the field lines are closely packed the force is stronger. What the field is "made of" may be borrowing too heavily on a mental construct that isn't accurate. Fields field lines are based on our models and descriptions of how things behave in the presence of charged particles, be they stationary or moving around. The electric field, for example, is E = F/q, i.e. the force per unit charge a particle will feel. But with no charge there, there is no force. So is the field a real thing, or a description? If it's not a real thing, then it's not "made of" anything.

Hyrogen has a mass of 1.007825 amu, which is equivalent to [math]\frac{1.007825}{6.02*10^{23}}[/math] grams Does that help?