swansont

I think it's a little too late for some of that. SUVs have seriously reduced trade value these days, and I imagine moving is a little tough with the housing market, unless you're willing to sell below value. What kills me is that we have the capability of cleaning up CO2 and reducing oil demand by going solar and nuclear, and yet congress piddles around with short-term extensions on the tax breaks for solar. Solar electric may be more expensive right now, but at least the money can stay here, rather than going overseas.

I don't see how that makes this "not from published literature." If the data were published, then it is a graph of published data. If it's wrong, I would like a link to what's wrong about it, rather than an (currently) empty claim.

Wouldn't both of these result in warming? The graph shows a decrease in forcing from both, which would be from an increase in volcanic activity and decrease in solar. Then please demonstrate it.

You obviously had a vertical component to get the answer. What was it?

DavyJonesLoquet suspended (3 days) for multiple counts of thread hijacking.

The postulate of relativity is that light travels at c in all inertial frames (i.e. independent of the motion of the source). The statement that nothing exceeds c is a conclusion, not a postulate.

Vibration is well-explained using the first two derivatives of position wrt time. When you get past the third derivative, you basically stop getting physical meaning — I don't think anybody has bothered to name higher derivatives, since they don't tend to show up in any solutions to motion.

Moved to speculations. Keep it here, and not out on the science sections.

Been breathing popcorn fumes a little too much?

Forgive me quoting myself, but I recently addressed this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410859&postcount=29 Slow light happens because you prepare a sample with a really sharp resonance, and use light near that resonance.

This happens with gravitational forces — there's a point at which you overcome the electron degeneracy, which is how neutron stars are formed. I'm not seeing a situation where the field would require this, however. Electric fields have a divergence related to the charge, so I think (it's early yet) the only way to get the field you want is to already have assembled opposite charges via some other force.

Or, the short version: It assumes point masses. If you can't reasonably assume that, you have to break the problem up into manageable pieces where the assumption holds.

That works if there's no air resistance. If there is, the trip down can take longer.

This, like your other strawmen, is not what is being claimed. The conclusion that hydrinos don't exist is because of the evidence and the well-established theory that does exist. "Counter-intuitive" wasn't in the picture until you photoshopped it in.

Car, girlfriend, hobby that costs money: pick one.

Who said anything about a shell? A photon is a vibrational mode of the electromagnetic field. The fields have energy.

One needs to distinguish between theory, speculation and metaphysics. Theories are built up on evidence. What is the evidence that hydrinos exist? That there is a state below the ground state?

graviphoton suspended for three days for a combination of recent violations: flaming, thread hijacking, and copyright violation

Meh

Photons can have any energy, depending on their frequency. They cannot be a unit of energy. They are certainly not defined as energy; energy has spin 1? Energy only interacts via the electromagnetic force? How does that work?

I'm guessing you are misunderstanding your teachings, or they have been vague about some of the more advanced concepts.

You don't get to have your own scientific methods. You have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Cite? Neutrinos interact via the weak force, not electromagnetic, so AFAIK this could only happen above the energy where they are unified.

And we'll never know what they are unless we do experiments. So, we can go ahead and do them based on the risks we can assess, or we can stop all scientific experimentation because we're afraid of the dragons that live at the edge of the earth.

From the linked PR: "That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron." That's energy-to-matter conversion. Neater than all get-out, to be sure, but in no way supports the contention that the new particles are made out of light.