swansont

But the curve you've shown is for the solar radiation (incoming) and not the terrestrial radiation (outgoing) This shows the absorption band at around 15 microns (note the lower axis is in wavenumbers, so the ordering is reversed, and you can't just reverse and overlay the curves) The blocking happens through the atmosphere, wherever the water is, not just at the top. The opacity happens because of the thickness. Increasing the concentration will change the average radius where absorption is occurring. Here's a smaller one that compares them directly CO2 absorption at 4 and 15 microns has only a small effect on incoming radiation, but a huge effect on the outgoing. I think that's a good point — if the atmosphere is opaque at a given wavelength, the radiation reservoir is the temperature of the atmosphere, not of the earth. And let us not forget that not all radiation outward will be directed into the 3K reservoir of space — there is a 5800 K source there is well.

Evolution does not work that way. Thoughts are not genetically encoded, and neither are adaptations (Lamarckism was falsified ages ago)

I'd like to know who they are. I don't think any spoke at the conference I just attended.

We are? I was never taught that, and if it were true, it would have huge implications on using quantum systems as a basis for metrology, since these systems would no longer be identical.

It's related to the title of the post, not the material. (The various repsponses one might give to Have you put on weight?)

Compare the orbits of Earth and Venus. Do a Cavendish-type experiment and see if there is attraction when the masses are equal. But you can eliminate this issue by dropping the objects simultaneously, with the earth accelerating toward both of them.

I haven't used Lagrangians in ages. Maybe someone a little closer to having taken the class.

There's nothing to indicate that we can tap into zero-point energy.

Yes, that certainly happens. But the blackbody curve at ~5800 K is mainly in the visible part of the spectrum, while the blackbody curve at ~300 K is peaked at around 10 microns, meaning a much smaller fraction of the incoming radiation is blocked. This is the basis of the greenhouse effect.

That's my thought. If it hasn't been tested, it's ad-hoc and should be considered an hypothesis rather than a theory. You place more value on the theory than on the hypothesis.

What a steaming load of untruth. This has been observed many times. "The wreckage became incorporated into the body of the glacier, with fragments emerging many years later and much farther down the mountain. From 1998 to 2000, about ten percent of the wreckage, including engine and propeller parts and the wheels (one with its tire still inflated), emerged from the glacier, prompting several re-examinations of the accident. More debris is likely to emerge as the glacier melts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STENDEC Moved by the ice. Learn some science, please. Because this is a farce — making bald assertions and spouting logical fallacies is no way to go through life. This is a science site. You are expected to back up assertions with evidence that meets the common standards. Appeals to religion do not meet these standards.

Nobody who understands basic evolution is claiming that humans are descendants of extant apes. Humans and modern apes share a common ancestor, which would also be classified as an ape.

U and V are both used, depending on who's writing down the equations.

I had linked this in my blog, but thought it might generate some discussion here. Over at Ideas We do ten experiments. A scientist observes the results, constructs a theory consistent with them, and uses it to predict the results of the next ten. We do them and the results fit his predictions. A second scientist now constructs a theory consistent with the results of all twenty experiments. The two theories give different predictions for the next experiment. Which do we believe? Why?

You do understand that "footprint" is a metaphor, right? And that a theory is not the same as a theorem? And that theories are not proven in the same sense that theorems are?

In our frame. Not a photon's frame.

Easy enough to check: if m1 > m2, then m1 should forward scatter. Only if m1 < m2 will you have backscattering. The top equation is correct. (v2i is taken as zero by using the appropriate coordinate system) The bottom equation predicts phenomena that can't occur.

They're breedin' while we're readin'

It depends on what the purported relationship is between mass and acceleration. If it's linear, and our test mass takes 1 second to fall, then A=0.999B would give you that result. A mass that is several times the mass results in a much bigger difference if the dependence is linear. This isn't a question about planet formation, this is a question about orbits and actual data. And you can't use one speculative argument in support of another.

Um, no. Molecules do not cease moving at 0 ºC. You're thinking of absolute zero, which is -273.15 ºC, or 0 K.

Panels on houses can be inclined to a reasonable angle, and would render the panels useful in the summer.

Conservation of kinetic energy is not the same thing as conservation of energy. Conservation laws derive from symmetries of nature; if energy is not conserved, the laws of physics must be changing in time. Conservation of linear momentum similarly is tied with translational symmetry of nature. As long as the laws are the same here as elsewhere, momentum must be conserved. These connections were mathematically proven by Emmy Noether many years after Leibniz and Newton, so any arguments the latter had are completely irrelevant.

It is. Conservation of angular momentum.

Is the issue the time it takes (i.e. the light is very old), or the fact that the recessional speed exceeds c?

What data do you have to support that this is the case? If acceleration depended on the mass difference, rather than the mass product, how would this affect, say, the planetary orbits and the motion of our moon? The moon experiment wasn't designed to support or disprove this particular conjecture, so your critique of it is without merit. You have proceeded under the apparent assumption that Newton's gravitational law didn't have a massive (as it were) amount of evidence to support it already.