swansont

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/308/1 http://thayer.dartmouth.edu/~Simon_G_Shepherd/research/Shielding/index.html

What is GMST?

"I'm right, everyone else is stupid" isn't much of an argument. ——— Before you go forward with any of this discussion, you need to establish the validity of the dot-wave hypothesis. Basing further argument on speculation is not going to be at all productive, so I'm closing this down. Don't start any more threads based on dot-wave, and answer the questions in existing threads.

The centripetal force is the force directed toward the center of the circle However, I think you have to revisit the approach to the problem. I've looked at it a little more carefully; the net force is not zero, which changes how you have to look at the free-body diagram, and the normal force is not merely a component of the weight. If you look at the forces present in the coordinate system where gravity is in the -y direction, you'll see that the y component of the normal force is greater than the weight. (the car is, in effect, "pressed down" to the track by going fast, since the track has to push it in a circle. Consider the case where the track is inclined at 90º to see an extreme example of this)

So they could disrupt the voting system. People vote for judges, sheriffs and district attorneys. The integrity of that process is important.

X-rays are ionizing radiation. You'll want something with a low atomic density and low atomic number to minimize the number of potential targets.

Discussion boards have a word for people who do that: troll Don't be a troll. Then it's not science. Be advised that on this board discussion of alternative approaches to science must still be done within the framework of science. You need to address questions and present evidence for claims.

Evidence? Interesting. Mine has not ended, nor (I suspect) has it for most of the other people here.

First link: you misread it. "The virtual particle didn't "transmit" any information that I didn't have already; it is useless as a means of faster-than-light communication." That translates as: doesn't violate causality. Second Link: "First off a disclaimer: I'm not a particle physicist, and although I have a basic understanding of Quantum Field Theory, I can by no means claim to be an expert on virtual particles" The "violation" he then quotes is the HUP.

Build one, then we can talk.

22422 N is the force in the x direction of your coordinate system. That's fine. What direction is the centripetal force in your coordinate system?

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