swansont

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.

Um, no. No matter teleportation has occurred. "Only" information has been teleported.

The question as framed by asprung only allows one answer.

Are we at rest with respect to the aether, or moving through it? Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Right. The issue with the electron is that if you require the surface speed to be below c, you end up with an electron that's much bigger than experimental values give.

Dry ice or liquid nitrogen works OK, using scatter instead of fluorescence.

Others disagree, and there's definitely no need to go to "4" on the font size. Please change your browser setting if you need larger type.

And you have to take this one step further — not only do length and time depend on who is measuring it, but there is no way to determine that any frame of reference gives he "right" answer; nobody can physically determine if they are moving or at rest, if the motion is inertial.

I don't see where anyone has challenged that point. But the 700 billion tons is not the net addition, because you haven't determined the losses. Non sequitur. Where has that claim been brought up in this thread? The OP offered it as a premise, not a prediction, in the context of understanding why water levels would rise should the ice melt. Most of the rest of the thread has been correcting points of math and physics. And that was never really a point of contention. And I (and I assume others) were proceeding from this point assuming ice had melted, and not discussing the merit of the premise. So yes, I think there has been a little difference interpretation in what was meant by "melting." I think you have an extraneous "not" in there.

No, the answer is incalculable, period. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the framing of the question implies the existence of absolute time, and that is the fatal flaw in the problem.

No, no no, it's ALL physics! In general, it depends on the situation. In some cases the material will absorb certain colors, and you see what's left over — the material will reradiate the light in all directions, so it's weaker than the reflected light. And the excited state you get from the absorbed light my give up its energy (or "relax") through methods that don't immediately involve giving up a photon, known as nonradiative decay, where you get phonon (vibrational state) excitations. This is often the case with solids. Chlorophyll, for example, absorbs strongly in the blue and red part of the spectrum, so it looks green. In other cases, you get absorptions at higher energies and you have some radiative or nonradiative decays, and then the atom or molecule has a strong transition that gives up a photon, and you see that color. (fluorescence) More often the case with with polyatomic gases.

You can get square and triangle waves by adding together certain sine waves (Fourier components) and that's why you can synthesize different tones. As to whether these occur naturally, it depends on what is considered "natural." You get different wave shapes by striking vs plucking a taut string — are these natural?

I'm talking about this thread. The pit bull thread, in which I have not participated nor have I read, is irrelevant to this discussion. You admit you presented a point as logic, not data, yet you complain of denial of facts and not respecting data. You can't have it both ways. And the underlying points are that this is a matter of facts and data, and I didn't admit that you were right — The clarification for which iNow asked is: and the correct answer is that the highest levels of precipitation fall at the lower altitudes, near the coast (from your link) and this is not the answer you gave. This isn't about whether your deduction of the altitude of Antarctica is correct. The question at hand was given above — where is the precipitation highest. Do you really think that attacking me is the wisest course of action here?

It's not actually data, or a fact, if you assume it. Which is what you did. If you had provided a link the first time around, for this and the other claim*, (for which, in general, you have been asked repeatedly to do) it might have short-circuited this whole exchange. And I find both the lack of citation and the sniping annoying. You could have provided a link like this, which actually shows the elevation. Your earlier post on precipitation, where you cited the 2" average, but not the distribution, would have tied in well with that map: "most of the snow falls within 120 to 190 miles of the coast. Average precipitation on the coast is 20 to 50 inches of snow (7 to 16 inches of water equivalent). The Antarctic Peninsula has highest precipitation of the continent, (36 inches water equivalent)." Given that, iNow's questions about the distribution don't seem out of line — they point to the fact that you weren't citing the most relevant data. Much of the precipitation indeed falls where the elevation is actually below 2000 m. —— *to wit: "In fact, the bulk of Antarctica has not been warming" Find me a link. ——— And let me add this: while iNow has occasionally stepped across the line in these discussions, I think that in this thread that has not been the case. All that has occurred is a request to give some supporting documentation, i.e. not accepting an assumption when one could cite something far more solid. Which would seem to be perfectly acceptable to a skeptic. I would suggest you not lecture anyone about the quality of their scientific thinking and instead lead by example.

I think you run into trouble when you try and apply classical concepts (hollow sphere or tube) at this level. Hollow and point-like would seem to be conceptually orthogonal. But how does a hollow particle solve the spin angular momentum "problem"?

The two orbital radii can be found with http://www.google.com/ The speed of the radar signal will be c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

I don't see any posts here that contended that the Antarctic ice cap would disappear. But you have to look at losses and gains, because the contention that SkepticLance made assumes no losses whatsoever. So it would appear that "melting" vs "no melting" was indeed being interpreted differently in two separate ways.

Sure you can. You can have melt, but precipitation that exceeds the amount of melting.

The trick is having a lot of ways for light to get into the material and then bounce around and be absorbed. A stack of razor blades makes an excellent beam-dump for this very reason — the shallow angle means that scattering is forward, and there is little surface area presented to the beam. Of course, the perfect absorber is also a perfect radiator, so this isn't "black" in the IR, if it's near room temperature.