swansont

If it's the chemical formula, then you have to decide how the pairs will combine. Sodium and Chlorine form an ionic bond, with each having one electron given/taken, so the formula is NaCl. You have to figure that out for the other atoms or molecules.

If I'm understanding the question properly, if it were "DiHydrogen Monoxide" the answer would be "water." So I guess each of those are assumed to have a more common name. I'm assuming if they wanted the formula, they'd ask for the formula (e.g. H2O) rather than the name

But surely you can purchase black paint.

And h, rather than h-bar

Moved to physics (yes, it's possible to get stuff out of pseudoscience & speculations)

mΔT isn't meaningful without c, because c is the intrinsic property of the material. Q is the heat. i.e. the energy that is transferred

url removed. If you want to discuss things, do it here. And 'here" will be in speculations

Unless it's a photon, in which case it's p=E/c

This will be a listing of users that have been banned or suspended for rules violations (other than spambots that have been immediately deleted) Automatic suspensions for exceeding the 25-point limit of infractions are three days. Other suspensions and bans are from explicit moderator action. "Sabbatical" refers to a user-requested suspension/ban (update 4/24/09) ———————————————————— Zephir has been suspended for 1 week for repeated highjacking via off-topic posts of alternative theories in the physics section (including violations of rule 2.5, use of scientific threads to advertise a personal theory)

Yes, the field at any point depends on the current. For a straight wire or coil it's linear, though for other configurations the relationship can be more complicated.

I'm not sure corn ethanol in the US is a panicky action, I think it's more of a lobby-opportunist reaction to boost subsidies. Doing something that looks green, but doesn't do much to address the problem. Meanwhile, congress waffles on subsidies for solar.

The relationship between energy and speed is asymptotic and diverges at v=c. IOW, you need at add infinite energy just to get to c.

Right, there's a missing option in the grid — GW is real but not anthropogenic in origin. So you get the catastrophe no matter what action you take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report and links therein Followup discussions along this line belong in one of the several existing threads on the topic. This thread is about the politics involved.

I think the physics answer is no and the art answer is yes. In physics you'd have to be able to assign a wavelength or spectrum to it. What does the spectrum of "black" look like?

Naomi Oreskes, in the video which highlights the history of the GW actions and that has been linked to twice (or more) in GW threads, contends that it is indeed government non-involvement that is the ideology behind the denialism of several of the major players such as Fred Singer. How many more do you need? The research and resulting papers have been accumulating for decades.

Also look and see if there are molecules where it isn't possible to just replace a carbon with a silicon, and why. And whether the enthalpy of any necessary reactions changes sign when you use a silicon-based molecule instead of carbon.

It'll be different if you are continually introducing that warm air at some rate, since that involves solving a differential equation.

Then you should have absolutely no trouble differentiating between mainstream and alternative responses, and posting in the appropriate sections. If it's an alternative theory/hypothesis, it belongs here and not in the physics section. The thread from which this was moved was discussing the aether as defined at the time, what you are calling the thin aether. Bringing anything else into the discussion is off-topic.

As above, if there are papers in peer-reviewed literature on it, it should go in the physics section.

One of your steps, you have a < b and conclude that a < b < b^2, but this is not true because it is given that b < 1. The work past that is, of course, garbage, as it depends on a false statement. So I assume you'll retract all of your nonsense now, right?

Because you're hijacking threads with off-topic discussions. It's disruptive and it won't be tolerated.

We were assumed to be moving through the ether, because Bradley's observation of stellar aberration in 1725 showed that we could not be at rest with respect to it. And as that postdates the M-M experiment, it is decidedly off-topic for this thread.

Our back is not particularly well-suited for upright walking. The whole abdomen shows co-opting from quadrupedal movement.

No, an orbit including Mars could intersect the Earth without any deceleration; it would be elliptical and would intersect the Earth's orbit twice. The reverse is not true without the energy input I described. And (roughly spherical) particles bigger than ~ a micron feel a stronger gravitational force than the radiation pressure at the Earth's orbit.