swansont

If they're separated by 186,000 miles after 1 second, they moved at ~ c/2 in the lab frame. That shouldn't be a problem. We define the duration of the second, but the behavior of time is a property of the universe, and we don't get to define that. Time is relative to the frame of reference you are in when you measure it.

You haven't made it clear what you're trying to prove. As far as the "one stable Z for a given A" this is trivially falsified. Fe-58 and Ni-58 are stable. Se-80 and Kr-80 are stable. Sr-86 and Kr-86 are stable. And there are more.

Another thing that's often overlooked is that stellar aberration, first observed by Bradley ~1725, indicated that we must be moving through the purported ether. The M-M experiment was supposed to be a formality — a slam-dunk confirmation of the speed.

It brings into question the location of the oil, and cost/benefit.

If you want both components, you should be able to bombard it with light of sufficient energy and form the constituents. This is known as photolysis, and may include (or require) some other chemicals to occur efficiently. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MAR.m1005G http://www.jstor.org/pss/36610 If you want just one component then a material that bonds more strongly with the other will suffice, e.g. Aluminum reacts with water to form an oxide and H2.

There is this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Oh, come on, that's not what you said earlier. You said drill for all domestic oil. Don't move the goalposts.

That's a speech from Feb of 2006, though. What's he been pushing recently?

I've "hidden" the answers; the goal in HW help is to help, not do the problems — that generally has little benefit. The poster hasn't responded in 10 days, which makes one wonder if they found a sucker somewhere else to do the problems for them.

Since it's not true, then yes. I didn't realize this was being claimed.

Journals have their submission procedures in the journal and probably online. Be prepared to be rejected. Most new ideas are wrong.

I'm not sure if McCain doesn't understand the scale of the issue or if he's just pandering because it's what some people want to hear, and zigging while Obama zags is just strategy. I just want someone to grow a backbone and do what's in our long-term best interest rather than do what's popular. Hybrids evolving into plug-in electric with a gas reserve for emergency/long-haul use. Energy independence. Why can't someone sell that?

I don't see anything surprising in there, other than not really believing a graph having data associated with Z=285 and the vicinity. Any specific questions?

That his intellectual cupboard was bare, perhaps.

Re: the vested interests, I agree that people selling solutions to the problem have similar vested interests as the people selling the status quo. I think that we have to recognize that identifying the presence of a problem and identifying the solution are separate, though coupled, items. This is the issue of "framing," of which I'm not a huge fan because of exactly this item. But you do have the problem of explaining a complex issue in a way people will understand it. The scientists and any supporters shouldn't be misrepresenting things, and that puts them at a disadvantage when trying to convince people who are swayed by things other than fact.

That would depend on how you defined/explained ‘elastic force of matter’ and ‘vacuum force of the particle field,’ among other things. DO NOT answer this here.

I like the irony of the potential for revenue being extracted from such ads. Click on them. Death by a thousand cuts!

What's a pointer state?

The debates get longer when claims are made without supporting evidence being presented, and questions go unanswered.

Then why do we have so (relatively) few bacteria around? If their numbers have only been going up, because they don't die, why aren't there more?

BECs are fairly well understood; the basic theory behind them is 80 years old. The change of scattering length, as I understand it, comes about because of a Feshbach resonance (achieved with a magnetic field) that allows one to adjust the scattering length and change sign on the other side of the resonance. These things weren't discovered accidentally, these were effects that existing theory predicted. Claiming that you've explained something to do with BECs is an incredible reach. You offer no new insight into them here.

Who's writing these best sellers? I look at Amazon.com and search on "global warming" and I see one book by John Houghton. I see many books and videos from the denialist camp, I see many books by people who are not atmospheric scientists. Doing research into global warming — does that mean that the funding goes away unless they reach a particular conclusion? That's a hell of a conspiracy, since it relies on other scientists not blowing the whistle, and ignores that one of the big players in research — the US — hasn't been supportive of global warming initiatives. Why haven't the US researchers been finding that global warming is bunk? It would seem that that result would have secured funding for them. The reality is that falsifying research is a death knell for your career, if you're a scientist. If you're not, and you want to take the "battle" to the people and duke it out in the op-eds and in books, you're free to make stuff up. The issue at hand is the smear against the scientists producing the data. People don't like the data, so they impugn the reputation of the scientists by claiming that they are biased by the availability of funding.

Sorry, I neglected to include a quote — I was referring to the "GW is real" vested interests JohnB was referring to. I can certainly see any specific implementation being suspect because of vested interests; someone set to cash in on trading carbon offsets is going to push carbon offsets. But there's the whole conspiracy agenda that the government/university scientists can't be trusted because they have a stake in the outcome. And I just don't see it.

You really haven't brought up anything related to a collapsing BEC, so somehow I doubt that this is evidence of anything you've discussed.

I've never understood the "vested interests" argument. Regardless of the answer, scientists will still study climate. If one issue is solved, there's plenty of other stuff to study. And you don't need "green" to advance alternatives to fossil fuel, since it also promotes energy independence.