swansont

I know truth is a defense, but degenerating into this only invites back-and-forth sniping and just drags things lower, so please refrain from this (please note that this is directed at any and all who are tempted to engage in baiting while trollspotting). The situation been addressed. Move along. We bring you back to your regular discussion.

Can't help you there. This is just surreal. But Fred will be on furlough, so there's no point in continuing.

No, you are not. By your own analysis, you correctly recognize that linear fits can be extremely limited in value (given a short enough data set, a linear fit always works), and yet you simultaneously decry others' extrapolations but claim your own is valid, based on zero scientific analysis. On what basis do you support the claim that the temperature increase will be linear? That's mostly political, being policy action. Note that I am not challenging you because I think you are denying global warming, I am challenging you because you are making invalid scientific conclusions. Poor science is poor science. And IMO policy shouldn't be based on poor science.

I've fixed them, I think. Fred, you need to properly attribute material.

The main point is the 2nd law: F=ma tells you what happens. If there is a force, there will be an acceleration, and you can calculate whatever unknown there is if you have enough information. (it's really F = dP/dt, but that's a later topic) The big concepts here are that "at rest" and "moving with a constant velocity" are treated the same way — there's no net force present. Also, the relevent term is here is net force: the vector sum of all the forces acting on the object. The first law gives some special cases, and also tells you when Newton's laws apply. If either of the conditions are violated, you know you are in an accelerating reference frame, and the second law won't give you the right answer. The third law gives rise to conservation of momentum. As to the calculations, it's all about setting up the problem and applyng the algebra. Identify the forces and use the above concepts to write out the equations. Post an example and people will help walk you through it.

The coriolis effect diminishes as you move away from the equator. There's something like a cos(latitude) term

E= hv tells you how much energy a photon has. Still doesn't mean light is energy.

So let me see if I've got this right: if "change" appears anywhere in an explanation, you see this as support for "entropy = change" Got it. You, of course, didn't notice the context of what was written; one of the passages was "without any change." It's one thing to read the words, but another thing to understand what they mean when you string them together.

I'm not aware of anyone treating spacetime as a wavefunction.

I can't help but note that you've omitted the "An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future." claim, which was the focus of iNow's argument. The issue was not so much the past increase, but the extrapolation and conclusion you reached from it. Linear extrapolation of a nonlinear function has limited validity.

You have gotten substantial feedback, from physicists no less, much of which you have brushed aside. My evaluation of your material as speculative is based on the fact that, um, it is! What you have is based on conjecture; you have not proposed how to test this conjecture and have no data that supports you at the exclusion of established theories. Further, you have made predictions that are contrary to actual experimental results (e.g. that the classical electron radius is the actual size of an electron, and that a neutron is comprised of 5 particles) And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit.

There who goes? "light is energy" <> "light possesses energy"

I think the point of the question is to look at the force in the direction of motion. I'm not sure if you'd consider the force on the rudder to be drag, if one were to assume that was restricting the lateral motion, since drag is a speed-dependent quantity and the speed in that direction is zero. This is a physics 101 problem; one should try not to read too much into it.

Light possesses energy. Nothing in that abstract says otherwise. Acoustic excitations possess energy, too.

Because time isn't absolute, and comparisons of different reference frames must account for this.

Oops. That should be "velocity is constant"

The x and y components are independent; an x-direction force can only influence motion in the x-direction. That's why you break forces down into orthogonal components — it's a powerful tool. Since the velocity is zero, you know that both the x- and y-component forces are zero.

We've established that the net force on the barge must be zero. Next step is to identify all of the forces, and set up the equations so they add to zero. What are the forces acting on the barge?

From what I can glean from reports, the reversal was on procedural grounds, not scientific ones.

I haven't read the book, but I wonder: how do you justify characterizing this as an extrardinarily competent work be when the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty found him guilty of scientific dishonesty? "Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on" http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03b.html

So the horse exerts a force. Now, apply F = ma to the problem.

Already have threads on this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12277 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20509

Put another way, with either the engine or sail, you have a force. Why is it moving at constant velocity?

In electrolysis you're going to form oxygen so I'd think you have to expect oxidation. "25" without units doesn't mean anything to me; hydrogen does dissolve a little bit in water, so pulling a vacuum should reduce that (a transient effect, though).

But if Joe can't pay, he defaults, and that ripples through the chain of mortgage-backed securities and whatever secondary or derivative or other financial vehicles are involved. Lowering the prime rate affects ARMs and should reduce the default rate on those, to some extent. That helps Joe, and anybody invested in those securities. I don't see how Dick, Harry nor I are harmed by this, unless the Fed cuts so low that it fuels inflation. I'm not saying it won't happen — I just don't see the chain of events.