swansont

"Why We Get Sick" by Nesse and Williamson

Trig functions are not linear. The easiest way to do this is to memorize all of the values of cosine for the various fractional values of pi. Otherwise I assume it's fair game that you know that pi/6 gives 1/2, and use the angle addition and subtraction formulae.

Wonder bread. You forgot about the wonder bread.

I believe that you're not making it up. It's awkwardly stated, but is has an element of fact — it's not that cats can only digest meat, but they do require it. "Vegetarian cat food" is an oxymoron. http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/taurine.php "Taurine is an amino acid formally known as 2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid with the chemical formula: C2H7NO3S. Taurine is an essential amino acid for the cat, which means that the cat can not synthesize sufficient Taurine from other amino acids. Humans and dogs, for example, synthesize Taurine from the amino acids Methionine and Cystine. Preformed Taurine is only available from animal tissue, and high concentrations of Taurine are found in the heart muscle, skeletal muscles, brain and eyes of mammals, as well as the meat from clams and oysters."

Yeah, you can see the dipole pattern when you do that. Also, in the sine wave you can see there's a difference between the near-field and far-field field. Laser cooling applets http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/lcooling1.html'>http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/lcooling1.html optical molasses (2-D laser cooling) http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/lc2d.html'>http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/lc2d.html BEC/evaporative cooling http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/bec.html'>http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/bec.html The index to a whole bunch of them http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/

Nay, I think it belongs in speculations. But seriously, I agree — unless someone can come up with some actual data to substantiate their claims. While undoubtedly some sick people are kept alive much longer with generally poor quality of life, can anyone quantify this in any meaningful fashion? Think of counterexamples, like hip or knee replacement surgery, that definitely improve the quality of life.

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Something that will be waiting for you when you get back... Hmmm. Post #47, just two days ago, So either you are contradicting yourself, or it's that we had already established that we meant positive correlation was correlation, and negative correlation was something different (I had used the term "anti-correlation"), which means this is just equivocation and is sidestepping the point.

Any uncorrected constant deviation from a straight line will put you in a circle. So the earth's motion need not have any effect.

But only if they own their home over all time periods. I'll get right on this sometime in the future and have it banned by last week. Mmmmkay?

Notice the symmetry you get when you bump up the friction and let things settle in.

Moved from relativity. Please discuss your points here. Merely linking to another site isn't likely to generate much discussion.

You claimed that it could be a hoax, which an entirely different type of speculation. And yes, I must admit found the irony that you would refer to data from Solanki by saying "If the same data can be shown from a different, and more reliable source" (emphasis added) to be quite delicious. But we've established that fully half of the sunspot data does NOT correlate well with temperature. If you want to claim that it does, please provide supporting evidence.

The sunspot data is from Solanki, and the temperature data is from NOAA. Feel free to find some other data, of which I will note that you have directly presented none. Appeal to conspiracy is not a scientific objection. And that's why you can use the radioisotope variations as a proxy for sunspot activity, which is a proxy for solar irradiance. What you have to establish is that it's the cosmic ray effects instead of the irradiance that is being discussed. Given that the authors say "Here we test the solar-climate connection by comparing high-resolution measurements of drift ice in three North Atlantic deep-sea cores with proxies of changes in solar irradiance through the entire length of the Holocene." I'd say you have an uphill climb ahead of you.

That's if the filter rejects red light (a band-reject, or "notch" filter). If it passes only red light (a bandpass filter), you'd get nothing at all.

The QM descriptions of atomic orbitals have been empirically confirmed. It's definitely not at the level of hypothesis. QM is a well-established theory.

Why is it sloppy thinking to consider that if a correlation changes sign that perhaps it isn't causal?

Think of the processes of science — you want to test hypotheses and try and falsify them, which is a skeptical approach, because merely trying to find evidence that agrees with they hypothesis doesn't test it sufficiently; there may be more than one possible explanation. So you have to approach the tests you devise with the view of finding results that would only hold if the hypothesis was right, and would give a different result if the hypothesis was wrong. So requiring evidence, and having a standard of what constitutes evidence, is a skeptical approach.

Well, perhaps you mistyped, but the nucleus contains the protons (and neutrons) so it's not surrounded by them. The electrons surround the nucleus, but not in anything that looks like a planetary orbit, as Klaynos's link shows.

Meet LISA http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120376_index_0_m.html

You also want a second system to make sure that an event is real, since the two systems should record the event separated in time. So we need even more moons. Assuming their motion allows the system to work.

I don't think the motion of the moon is as precisely known or monitored, either.

Beats will occur at the difference frequency (and sum frequency), but in EM radiation you only get that under certain conditions. When you add different colors of light, the average frequency or wavelength isn't present — that's all interpretation in the brain, as CaptainPanic has noted.

What is the evidence that it does? Why should I assume that there are confounding factors for half of the graph? And why should I assume that it's for the first half, and not the second half? The graph gives equal support to the notion that sunspot activity decreases temperature as it does for increasing it. The only reasonable conclusion from that graph is that there is no noticeable effect.

There's not perfect, and then there's nonexistant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg Prior to ~5000 years there is strong anti-correlation. This is sunspot number, as I noted before. If you have sunspot activity data, feel free to present it.