swansont

The device has yet to be invented, that could measure how little this matters to me, and I suspect, other mods/admins. If posts are off-topic, they are subject to being moved to a new thread. If posts lack reasonable experimental and/or theoretical support, they are subject to being moved to speculations. You are not being singled out for this — it applies to everyone.

The amount of energy and momentum in a single photon is extremely small. The rate at which the electromagnetic energy around you is actually hitting you, is somewhere around 400 watts. (but you actually emit around 500 watts), which is a little over a microNewton of force, distributed all over your body, for perhaps a microPascal of pressure.

Entropy is what you should be studying.

It takes either a special kind of hubris or stupidity to be told by a moderator that off-topic and speculative material be put in the proper place, and then to go ahead and post in the same thread, telling the mod he's wrong. Since you're obviously not stupid, it's gotta be the hubris. Moved to speculations, until such time you can dig up a peer-reviewed paper that outlines all of what you've been discussing. Or we see some math and data that allow for prediction and falsifiability.

Stop lookin' at MY WIFE!

Which of Maxwell's equations would apply here?

But do so in an appropriate area. Don't hijack a thread on a different topic. new topic = new thread not established physics = speculations edit: OT and speculative material has been, and will continue to be moved to the appropriate areas.

Before this goes too far, a reminder that this is in the physics section. Answers to this question needs to be based in and consistent with relativity. Any alternative explanation belongs in speculations.

Wasn't in my stockpile, actually. Spontaneous smartassery.

The top of the visible is a tad smaller, though — 400 nm is about 3.1 eV, and 700 nm is about 1.75 eV, so the efficiency from that standpoint can be above 50%. Normal fluorescent bulbs have an overall luminous efficiency of around 10%, but incandescent bulbs are somewhere around 2%. Incandescents waste a lot of energy in the IR. (Keep in mind in evaluating those numbers that the ideal white light source has an efficiency of 35.5%, because luminosity is defined in terms of light at 555 nm, where the eye is most sensitive.) So the "relatively small" here has to be taken in context — even though 10% doesn't seem very efficient, it's still five times better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy One advantage that LEDs would seem to have over fluorescent bulbs is the ability to choose the bandgap rather than rely on a molecular or atomic transition, usually mercury (at 254 nm IIRC)

The relevant factor is the bulk modulus, and for metals it's usually in the 100's of GPa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus

I split this from the gravitons thread, since it is OT for that. Depending on how this goes, it may end up in speculations. smooth, please lose the attitude. It is a barrier to constructive discourse.

When did Singer become a "climate physicist"? Has he done any research and published any peer-reviewed articles? Anybody can publish books and op-eds. And Singer has flip-flopped his stance; a few years ago it was "there is no warming" and now it's "there is warming and it's not anthropogenic — it's unstoppable." His consistent position has been "less/no government involvement" but that's ideology, not science.

If only we had some April fuel to warm things up.

And as you showed a few posts back, 2008 is a data point is somewhat above the trendline. Once you distill the discussion, that's all that's been noted here. Nothing more to see. Let's move on.

It depends on how the shift happened, because energy, momentum and angular momentum are conserved — the quantities would change with a shift in the moon's orbit. The response of the earth would depend on what actually happened. If the moon were simply in a different orbit, then there would be a difference in the strength of the tides and probably in the amount of precession and nutation of the earth. ——— And to whoever hacked the editor: Oh, you magnificent bastard!

What breach of contract? If I tell Kary May Kosmetics that I (and others) won't use their products until they stop testing them on unicorns, what contract is potentially being breached?

The events to which insane_alien refers are cosmic rays, which can have a much higher energy than the LHC will achieve.

Note that academia isn't the only avenue open to you for doing research. Though government and industry will likely be applied research, rather than "basic" research.

How is this different from negotiating a lower price for a product because of the existence of competition?

Incandescent depends on heating, and emission of a spectrum approximating a blackbody, so a fair fraction of the energy is outside the visible range, giving rise to the "all heat but no light" misnomer. Fluorescent relies on a discharge to excite/ionize a material, and the photons emitted (usually in the UV) to excite a material that (wait for it) fluoresces, i.e. emits lower-energy photons. The "wasted" energy is often smaller, because the difference in energy from the UV down to the visible can be made relatively small. LEDs excite electrons across a bandgap in a semiconductor, and they emit photons when the drop back down. Also can be made to be very efficient, if the excitation closely matches the photon energy, so much of the input energy is delivered as photons.

Bingo. What I was alluding to a few posts ago, but stated better.

I suspect the problems arise because measurements are being made in different reference frames, and you are not free to just jump between them in your analyses. I can't vouch for the veracity of the site, but I found http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm "Thus when we say "the gravitational acceleration goes to infinity as our radial position approaches 2m" we really mean that the amount of acceleration required to boost us into a hovering frame goes to infinity"

Any problem you'd have with gravitons you'll have with the electromagnetic force as well. And perhaps worse with force carriers that have mass — do they fail to work outside the event horizon, but in a region where they are gravitationally bound and would be unable to interact with other particles at a greater r? I think one needs to consider two things — the differences between how virtual and real particles behave, and that GR is a classical theory, so any introduction of quantum effects is potentially incompatible and may lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not a GR person, so I don't know where exactly those pitfalls are located. But that leads to a question — are we sure that gravitons wouldn't be emitted at the event horizon?

You're looking for the physics definition of time, and yet you insist on looking in a dictionary. My suggestion of looking up "coincidence" would point out that the dictionary definition is basically opposite that of the physics definition, demonstrating that the dictionary is not a technical resource. Which has been stated a number of times before. Is energy just a consideration? Something need not be physical to be real, and it can still be something other than a "consideration." You're looking for metaphysical answers to questions. Science isn't going to give them to you. You said they were composed of motion, which is clearly, well, laughable. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm The optical oscillations of the essentially motionless ion are used to produce the "ticks" or "heartbeat" of the world's most stable and accurate clock. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22097 The ideal frequency reference would be a single, motionless atom, unperturbed by any interactions with other atoms or the environment. http://whyfiles.org/078time/index.php?g=2.txt The cold, slow-moving, atoms are measured in the microwave chamber on the way up and back down, using the same general technique we've already seen. The improved precision results from the reduced Doppler effect and an increase in measurement time. i.e. there is an improvement in making the atoms move slower. Motion is not the basis of the measurement. I keep pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. The oscillation is in the wave function, which is not real. The atoms are placed in either one state or the other. But this is QM, so it's really not profitable to try and glean classical meaning from what's going on.