swansont

What I'm talking about is the lack of precision in the variable in question, because it's described by wave mechanics.

I'm not talking about measurement statistics. If I get a photon from a transition with a particular lifetime, there will be an energy width associated with that transition, and the photon I get will likewise have an uncertainty in its energy. You can't say the photon has a particular frequency until you measure it.

"final energy" in your momentum section is the "final kinetic energy" kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity except under certain circumstances.

Instead of insinuations of conspiracy, how about presenting actual evidence of that, and of tampering and misrepresentation.

Post moved to speculations http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34327

So the basic gist of this is that you don't understand energy and momentum. Because the solution to this problem is regularly solved by physics 101 students. That you can't figure it out does not point out any flaw in physics.

This is a political question though, and the danger is that no action will be taken if there is a perception that there isn't a problem. Why should I spend extra money on fancy lighting, electric cars or green power sources if global warming really isn't all that big of a deal?

You won't know where on that probability distribution your data point will lie until you actually measure it, and you can't know what the frequency was at any time other than when you measured it.

Finding a new phenomenon that is currently unexplained, formulating a new hypothesis, testing and experimenting to see if it's true — there's nothing crackpot about that. It's what scientists do. Electrons not spiraling into the nucleus is a great example of science in action. It take a special kind of skewed perspective to put that forth as a negative.

Doesn't seem to bother Wile E. Coyote, though.

I think your very first quote in the OP points to this. The said they'd publish an op-ed that mirrors what Obama had done, and specified what they meant. If their goal was to show that Obama has a plan and to discredit McCain, sure. But maybe, just maybe, they were showing some journalistic integrity.

No can do. Heavy-metal poisoning from the cans and string is a choking hazard.

Obama may not have proffered anything new, but it was a piece that spelled out his position — what he would do and what his goals were. McCains's piece did not fulfill the same function, and it seems to me what the Times was asking for was for him to do as Obama did — write an op-ed which spells out your goals and what your proposed actions are. McCain chose not to do so.

Is there a point to any of this? I mean something to discuss?

There are also models where the proton decays. The problem is in looking for a pattern, you find it, because you ignore whatever doesn't fit the pattern, or reinterpret it so it does.

Yeah, basically. GMT is a solar measurement, though, and UT1 uses stars, so there are some small differences.

So did anyone actually read McCain's piece, and judge it on its merits? Every single paragraph following the initial one is about Obama and how Obama is wrong — it does not lay out any specifics of McCains plans, or define what "winning" would be. It's basically just an attack ad. If you look at Obama's piece, he mentions McCain just three times.

If you're thinking it's a new topic, start a new thread, especially if you would be posting in a thread someone else has started.

Nuclei. Composite, stable particles. There are symmetries in the fundamental particles, but you can't only collect the data that agrees with you — you have to look at all of it.

Probably UTC rather than GMT, but I may be the only one around who cares.

A deuteron is stable. He-3 is stable. And so on, up the chart of the nuclides.

Which are statements either taken out of context, or are poorly thought out. Birds fly, ergo flight is not impossible. Travel faster than the speed of sound was along ago observed with supersonic projectiles, so again, not impossible. What was being observed were the engineering difficulties, not ones imposed by physics, as insane_alien has pointed out.

"composite" and "elementary," as used here, contradict each other. Elementary particles are not comprised of other particles. By definition, really. The rest smacks of numerology and data mining. ——— There is no need to link to your other threads. If people have an interest in discussing them, they will.

Equilibrium was a poor choice on my part. Quasi-steady-state would perhaps be a better description: a range, over some period of time, where the fluctuations are small compared to the larger changes that had happened. If you look at the last half-million years of temperature data, there are some changes of several degrees, but the fluctuations on thousand-year times outside of this are of are much smaller. Considering that the recent change in CO2 is of order 50,000 ppb I have to think you meant ppm, but then, when in the last half-million years has the CO2 been 5,000 ppm? Something does not jibe here. And who is saying that the world is going to end? As scalbers has said, it's the degree to which coastal development has taken place. It hasn't been 1.8 mm/year over all time of course. Extrapolating the curve from last 100 years — in either direction — isn't valid. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html shows it hitting a minimum in ~ 1860 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png is hard to read for the time in question, but it looks like the rise in the last ~8000 years (the big inflection point) is about 5 meters. If you blow it up, there looks to be a more subtle inflection point a ~4500 years bp, with the rate of increase being smaller after that point.

Depends on what's in the scale. Some of it can be gotten rid of by softening the water. Other stuff, like silica, is harder to deal with.