swansont

I gotta agree with doG here. Besides, Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, and probably has a legal obligation to recover the money. But ParanoiA is free to protest and boycott them for whatever reason. I'll join you. What bothered me the most was "[they] were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care." IOW, the lawyers, et. al, scarfed up about half a million dollars. Jeez Louise, how is that justice?

Yes. I think we all need to step back and try to get out of knee-jerk-reaction mode, and actually read what was said. I think part of the problem is that the linked article in post #1 was an example of what not to say, as explained in your post #6. If you read past the second paragraph of the article, it begins engaging in the denialist behavior of citing anecdotes that was being objected to, so I don't find it all that surprising that the pot got stirred here. It would be like someone linking to a creationists site to give evidence for evolution, because they had one relevant fact correct but the rest of the information was flawed.

SL is correct, from my reading of the thread, that he never claimed that this was anything but a blip. ——— Although, I must note, the article cited was definitely denialist; a better report probably could have been found. It gets much harder to understand the point when the message is mixed like that. IMO it would have been better had you stopped after the fourth sentence, and then suggested the apology, and stopped there. The rest is one reason why we go off on these tiresome tangents.

That's not how it works. You are free to skip over any response you do not wish to read, under circumstances such as this (i.e. as long as you are not ignoring questions put to you or ignoring moderator comments).

I can't contradict something that has no apparent meaning, even after accounting for the probability that English isn't your first language. Particles are at homeostatic rest? Really? The short answer is that electromagnetic radiation is an oscillating electric and magnetic field. An oscillation that varies in amplitude over some path is what we call a wave.

Word salad, AFAICT.

Mars, maybe? I know Mars is visible, in Gemini right now, but not where that is in relation to the moon at that time.

One should become acquainted with what the word "theory" means in scientific discussions, especially on a science board. "A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory It does not mean "conjecture" "only a theory" is an oxymoron

Any signal that's not comprised of an infinitely long sine wave will have harmonics in it. heart arrhythmia electroencephalogram

Chemical bonds, basically, and similar effects like adhesion. Gravity is an incredibly weak effect compared to the other forces in nature; we notice it because it can't be screened, and so the long-range nature of it can be detected.

Dilation doesn't scale with pressure.

Some of these have been tested on the shuttle and space station, and even earlier, on space lab and Mir. AFAIK the advantages have been few and far between, and don't justify the expense. Microgravity advantages appear to be largely a myth. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10831 "There had been speculation that certain manufacturing processes that are difficult or impossible on Earth might be easier in microgravity. For most manufacturing processes, however, gravity is simply not an important variable. Gravitational forces are generally far too weak compared to interatomic forces to have much effect."

OK, I was in the laser mindset and thinking it was only IR photons being absorbed. This is exactly the same as the case I listed earlier, with the chlorophyll example.

Time dilation. As insane_alien notes, it's a part of the theory of special relativity. Have fun countering it, because I've got a boatload of empirical data on my side.

I'm not sure how you mean "the same now." But here's an example: the twin leaves in 2000 with their clocks synchronized — they both agree on this — and returns in what he says is 2010, but the earth twin thinks it's 2050. The earth twin sets off fireworks on the twins' birthday each year, bright enough for the space twin to see. They each observe 50 firework events. The earth twin thinks they happened a year apart. The space twin does not, because his clock was not running at the same rate.

But someone moving very fast ages at a slow rate, relative to a stationary observer.

Yes. Signal generators for electrical signals are standard lab equipment, and making square, triangle and sawtooth waves are typical functions. Programmable generators are available, too, to make arbitrary waveforms.

We keep going over the same ground. These questions have been addressed. Explain to myself? Already done it. The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

We're not going to go down this path. Dredging up history of who said what (or didn't say what) is off-topic. —— The ironic thing here is that the answer to iNow's question was contained in the link SkepticLance had provided, and so it would have been trivially easy to say "read the link" or copy/paste the line from it. So it's pretty obvious that neither of you read the whole thing. iNow's request for clarification of the precipitation pattern was not out of line, but would have been unnecessary. The subsequent melodrama could (and should) have been avoided. Get back on-topic.

If you're in an accelerating frame, you need a term to counter your acceleration so that F=ma will hold. That's why there would be a centrifugal term in that case, and why you also have a Coriolis term when treating the earth as an inertial frame of reference. If the rotation changes with time, you have an Euler force term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame

But I can find out that [math]\frac{GMm}{r^2} = \frac{mv^2}{r}[/math] and do a whole bunch of calculations with it, and compare them to measurements, and find agreement. And then do predictions and launch satellites and find they go where I wanted them to. So when someone else comes along and says, "My theory predicts that the earth goes around the sun, too." but has no math, I get to say piss on you, I'm working for Mel Brooks Big effing deal.

The physics also tells us that red or infrared photons have less energy than blue photons, so I'm curious as to where the extra energy comes from? Define "exactly." Doppler and collisional broadening can be GHz — huge! Beware the ghost of Rutherford!

The time passes at different rates — it stretches, as it were — so there isn't a 1:1 mapping between the two frames. Again, you are using an absolute time. An event occurs and both observers see it. But they will disagree on what time the event occurred. To one observer, the event happened at noon, but to the other it happened at 1 PM, because his clock has run faster.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Find me a cite for the experiment that teleported matter.

Moved to speculations. Sorry if any active responses got munged when I did so.