swansont

The WAIS contains 200 million km^3 of ice, which is 10,000 times more than the annual Greenland melt. IOW, if completely melted, would raise the sea level at least 5m. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet Which part is the lie, i.e. what is factually incorrect in iNow's reference? And where is the hypocrisy?

References and numbers would be nice. Especially since the previous conjecture was off by 5 orders of magnitude, and nobody else noticed.

The ad hoc-i-ness is blocking the truthiness.

6.022 141 79 (30) x 10^23 mol^-1 http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?na

iNow is quite correct in saying that opinion does not matter here, and Snail is on target with the observation about the number of threads on the topic of AGW. However, I'm not goig to lock the thread just yet. This is the only part of the OP that hasn't been covered elsewhere. So discussions on this topic can go forward. And I think you're quite right about this, oranphil. When someone says "we have to save the earth" they usually mean they want to preserve the conditions of the earth that are favorable to continued human existence. The earth will continue to be around under a wide spectrum of extremely harsh conditions that would wipe us out, and we don't possess any kind of technology that would endanger the earth's existence.

How many times greater motion is there in a mag 7 vs a mag 6? How many times greater motion is there in a mag 6 vs a mag 5? Hint: you've already done the analysis in your first paragraph.

That's exactly it. A single impact would transmit a compression pulse. A continuous push would have a "leading edge" of compression; in front the rod will not have started moving but behind, it would be moving.

Your fractions don't appear to be a consistent progression. (It's hard to say for sure because you present way too much data without explanation) The fraction for Neptune Uranus: the ratio is 0.238. You say 1/5, but why not 1/4? 1/4 is closer. We go to your next example, though, and the first fraction isn't 1/5. It's 1/2. The following has a first fraction of 1/3. Why aren't they the same, if they are following some underlying principle? Uranus to Saturn: the ratio is actually .503. You say 2/5? No that's 1/2, but that breaks the pattern you want.

To address another part of the question — one of the implications of relativity is that there can be no infinitely rigid bodies. The delay in the movement of the other end would have to be at least L/c, i.e. 1 hour in this case

Randi's prize is pretty well-defined and objective. What he requires is rigor, and generally excludes tests that can have ambiguous (i.e easily derived from fakery) results. So he's just setting conditions whereby the results would have to be from supernatural means, unlike some prizes where the offerer is saying "you must prove to my satisfaction" — those are the dishonest ones.

I think this is a product of looking at things incorrectly, or perhaps inappropriately, but you are constrained to do so because you learn classical physics first, and learn that p = mv Let me turn the question around (it may sound snarky, but it's not meant to be) Why should you need mass to have momentum? Think in more general terms about the concepts of force and energy. Energy means you can do work, and work means exerting a force. Forces cause changes in momentum. So anything with energy is going to have to have momentum

big314mp has been banned for a month, at own request, to focus on other tasks.

It also ties in with hidden variables. And the answer is again, no.

The windmill vane was clearly blocking the hole. There's no way the ball could have gone through — diffraction is the only explanation. (I can probably make up more details, too.) In physics we generally don't give points to correct answers arrived at by flawed reasoning. Otherwise one tends to reinforce invalid concepts.

Um, no. If you follow that link, it lists a dozen global warming denialist sites, full of schadenfreude and blather, with government conspiracy sprinkles on top. Everything listed in "Discussion" is itself a link The DI link is given as "For example, at the Discovery Institute" It's an example. Of people misusing the Booker article for their own ends. Which is exactly what Lambert was pointing out. What, exactly, were you expecting? Where's the "hoot?"

Inertia seems to be better applied to objects with mass. Light does have momentum.

What I'd expect is that at some wavelength you'll start seeing leakage, but the waves will diffract. As the wavelength gets shorter, there will be less diffraction, and the transmission will look more like the hole pattern. The cancellation view could possibly work, since waves follow superposition — you can't really say that an area is dark because two waves canceled or because there was no wave there in the first place. You have a standing wave because other wavelengths cancel is a valid way to look at things.

I don't think asking for proof or supporting evidence is being closed-minded (depending on the context). If the proposal is not plausible, running contrary to experience, then evidence is required. As with my original request for clarification of the definition, "open minded" is not synonymous with "blind acceptance."

iNow's number is deceptive, but for a different reason — it's wrong. (well not from a technical standpoint, but from practical one) The annual mass loss is around 200 billion tons (200 km^3 of ice is ~2e14 kg) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930081355.htm The conclusion that Greenland's contribution is trivial should have alerted, well, everyone, that something was amiss. Its contribution is currently about a half-millimeter per year.

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/math] Since the particles have mass, you use p = mv Compare the masses and the speeds of the proton and golf ball. (if you're familiar with some experiments, you would know that neutron diffraction has been observed. Golf ball diffraction probably has not*) *the famous event at the 12th hole at Sherman Oaks Putt-Putt Emporium on Aug 12 1992 has yet to be adequately explained without invoking a wave nature of the ball.

Not to pick on you, in particular, Riogho (yours is merely the most recent comment of this sort I've seen over several threads) but let's stick to the topic under discussion. These side observations/opinions add nothing. (especially if they aren't accurate, since that may foster further off-topic argument)

"Pressure per square meter" is redundant; pressure is force per unit area. So no, the size does not matter for the pressure. It does, however, matter for the force, because for a given pressure, the force increases as area increases.

There are holes in it — if the wavelength is short enough that the radiation can pass through the holes without interacting with the metal, they will. These holes can be the spaces between atoms for really high frequencies.

Apparently after correcting the bad data, October was still the fifth hottest October on record. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/mountains_out_of_molehills.php http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt