swansont

You need an oscillation overthruster. It allows you to pass into the 8th dimension. Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy!

But it would be the Hall effect/Lorentz force we're looking at. F = qv X B If you indeed see no deflection, one problem might be that the electrons in an arc may be moving quite fast, so there isn't much time to observe a deflection over a short path. The path being in air and the ionizations may have an effect. However, I've played with CRTs and magnets, and the electron beam is indeed affected by the magnetic field.

My vote counts, but 5.3 million of them won't?

Or the two words, as the pedantic case may be.

It's fascinating that so many people (independent thinkers all) believe that their new ideas are rejected because of some orthodoxy in science, which belies the many new discoveries reported on almost a daily basis. You need a self-consistent framework that is also in agreement with nature. It needs to be falsifiable. Absent that, all you will have done is mildly annoyed 100 physics professors. Since your proposal is seen to be incorrect with merely a cursory inspection, those 100 copies are destined for the dustbin (or, one hopes, the recycle bin, avoiding the needless sacrifice of an unknown number of trees.)

I saw this this morning and read the blurb on it. I've seen blue light emanating from some adhesives, such as band-aid and breathe-right strip wrappers, so UV wouldn't have surprised me. But to get up to X-rays is. Cool.

Classically light looks like radiation you'd get from an oscillating electric dipole, and so in order to conserve angular momentum, the systems have to change their dipole moment. Quantum-mechanically this shows up as selection rules based on the photon having one unit of angular momentum.

If one were not schooled in the jargon, though, that paragraph would not make a lot of sense.

Where have I misquoted you? I generally use the "quote" function to avoid such issues. You have been asked a number of times for the specific models to which you object, and I cannot recall you responding. So this "certain set" would seem to be all climate models. So unless you can establish that climate science is not science, you are, indeed objecting to science. At which point I refer you to my previous post — make your objections to the climate models scientific instead of based on logical fallacies. In rereading that thread, I thought the conclusion was they used poor terminology, because they used "emission rates" when they appeared to mean atmospheric concentrations http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32614 (mostly near the end)

I don't think so. From what I can tell it's consistent with Bernoulli's principle.

Lasers do not shoot protons, which are nuclear particles. They shoot photons, which are particles of light. (This was pointed out very early in the thread.) Perhaps you'd like to restate the question. Are you asking if lasers can be used as weapons?

How could you tell? It includes processes that involve a virtual intermediate state (Raman scattering) that is enhanced when near a real state, so I'm not sure if that counts as absorption — the electron is never actually found in the excited state. This is a quantum effect, and the question is sort of classical.

What?

You can do it, though, in a nonlinear crystal, where momentum can be conserved in the bulk material — it's called four-wave mixing. Specifically, this includes frequency doubling (second harmonic generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics

I chose 1988 for a reason, of course. That's when Hansen's paper came out, and when you use the conditions that most closely match what actually happened to the forcings, the temperature prediction is pretty good. And once again I must object and point out that claiming uncertainty as a fault, without quantifying it, is an empty, useless objection. All science is uncertain. No measurement or model is perfect. Without addressing what the required level of uncertainty is, and whether or not the models can achieve that, the objection is pointless and represents only so much blather. If you'll forgive the indulgence, I'll quote myself. "One of the functions of science is to limit the scope of uncertainty contained in "for all we know," and its utility includes neither argument from incredulity nor argument from ignorance." If you're going to object to science, the objections themselves need to be scientific.

Yes. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/mission-sts-75.html

Time measured in reference to the location of distant stellar objects, i.e. a star returns to the same overhead position in one sidereal day.

Bernoulli's principle is one way of looking at it: when you make air flow faster the pressure drops — each has an energy associated with it, and energy is conserved. The air that isn't speeded up (as much) — the bottom of the wing — has a higher pressure. Another way is through Newton's laws (also referred to as angle-of-attack). The wing deflects air and the recoil force pushes on it, generating lift. Depending on the geometry and circumstances, one explanation may be easier to visualize than the other.

What would your prediction have been in 1988, when you didn't have a three decade baseline to use? What would happen if you retrodict with your "model"? Why must models make unexpected predictions to be scientific? And what was "expected" about the results of climate models from a few decades back, when almost nobody had heard of global warming?

Split off from proton thread. Most lasers are indeed polarized, though as Klaynos has noted, it is not a requirement. Laser diodes are polarized; IIRC the gain medium doesn't support one of the orientations. Other systems include a Brewster plate to suppress the competing mode.

Analogies can be helfpful, but … "the electron IS energy" is wrong, and the electron doesn't have a planet-like orbit. A problem with painting this as a magnetic force (when an electrostatic one works, and is what you'd expect from charged particles) is that someone might think that it's actually a magnetic force. Planets do fall toward stars (that's the direction of the acceleration) but they miss because they are also moving forward at the right speed. Electromagnetism can explain the force causing the orbit of an electron around a proton (or higher-charge nucleus) just fine — Bohr did that as part of his model. The issue was that accelerating charges are observed to radiate energy; this problem ceases when the energy levels are quantized and there is a ground state. No way for the system to lose the energy.

Can't upload a picture to the blog. First attempt since the server disappeared on Friday. No error message — it just sits and churns, like 100 kB is too much of an effort to even try.

Medicine straddles the line. There are plenty of non-science-based treatments considered medicine (by some). Acupuncture, herbal treatments, homeopathy, magnetic bracelets, reikei, various "cleansing" routines, etc. The list is really long. Pharmaceutical testing, though, is science. You have a specific reaction that has been isolated and the substance is tested for efficacy and side-effects, using a double-blind procedure. The very fact that detailed testing gets (potential) products thrown out is a point in the scientific column. Do economic models do that? Can you isolate the effect and see if it, and only it, has the desired outcome? Can you test a small population and see if the model works with just them? How is one supposed to take the claim "climate models are not tested" seriously?

That's more or less how a laser diode works. In order for there to be amplification, you have to excite the atoms into a state where they can emit a photon of the right energy. What's available is something called a "tapered amplifier" which gives single-pass gain. It's tapered because the beam tends to expand, and that's actually a good thing, as it reduces the power density. You can a factor of 10 or so in amplification, for outputs up to around a half a watt. The ones we have for 852 nm are around x14. (~35 mW in, 450-500 mW out) Something that's clear isn't absorbing the photons, though. As for multi-photon emission, it's true that de-excitation can take multiple steps and give multiple photons, but these would be of different energies. An incoming photon would induce a transition of the same wavelength, but typically not for the others AFAIK. It would be interesting, though, to see if you could lase at 2 different wavelengths at the same time (and maybe someone's already done it). Not if you don't have mirrors on it. You'd have spontaneous emission and some gain, but in all directions. If the surfaces had anti-reflection coatings on it you wouldn't get above the lasing threshold (as YT has already said)

It is much more difficult to test the individual components of an economic model. OTOH, solar radiation, the absorption spectrum of water and CO2, etc. can be independently tested. The bottom line is that economics is not science. D H was right in terming this an association fallacy.