swansont

Apparently it's called the Pulfrich effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect http://www.photo-3d.info/wiki/Pulfrich_Effect edit: OK, I just set this up and tried it, and I gotta say it's pretty cool.

I'd have a hard time calling neutrino kinetic energy "photons" Everything I've read implies that Laughlin came up with his explanation after Tsui and Stormer had observed the fractional Hall effect. "The FQHE was experimentally discovered in 1982 by Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer, in experiments performed on gallium arsenide heterostructures developed by Arthur Gossard. The effect was explained by Robert B. Laughlin in 1983, using a novel quantum liquid phase that accounts for the effects of interactions between electrons. Tsui, Störmer, and Laughlin were awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize for their work. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect The effect has been observed many times in experiment. Perhaps now you can go back and treat this statement within the context of the discussion: Quantum theory deals with prediction we do not need another prediction theory. Constant Linear Force theory deals with structure. My comment was that all theories are predictive, so your objection is moot. They started with the observation first, then found the theory, and then they and others went back and tested further. e.g. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v70/p2944 Experimental evidence for new particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect R. R. Du, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West That's just one result, from 1993. Google scholar, "Results 11 - 20 of about 95,900 for fractional hall effect" (emphasis added) In what way is this effect untested and unfalsifiable?

But for every one like that there are 999 who are actually proposing things that are loony. I have evidence that confirms that relativity is right. A fair amount of it.

People used to do this but they don't anymore. I can't imagine that storing ice and lugging it around is particularly cost-effective when you can make it quite easily and cheaply.

I didn't see much in the list (to which iNow linked) that would be testable. How would you test if the penalty of sin remains until you get to heaven, for example?

Energy and time have the same uncertainty relationship as momentum and position.

Enthalpy of fusion is only useful to you if you are forming the ice — once it's formed that energy has been released — and I doubt air conditioning is a priority when it's snowing.

They won't agree on what the date and/or time is, as they will disagree on the measurement.

Ship 1 and ship 2 would each see the other's clock run slow while they are moving at constant v. You'll have a (separate) offset while clock 1 is undergoing an acceleration.

The dilation is relative between two frames; if you want to know how clock 3 is dilated with respect to clock 1, you don't look at clock 2. You have to look at it from clock 1's frame.

Actually, from an interview I read recently, it seems that these people are pretty clueless when it comes to distribution technology and its implications. Their mindset is still somewhere in the 1960's, when they siezed control of the industry. Techniques are not copyrightable, only specific expressions of ideas.

I think it's generally accepted that copying is a different skill-set than creation. While there are certainly examples where copying is labor-intensive and requires skill, but in many cases — especially these days — copying is often trivially easy. I don't equate a few mouse clicks with a "creative act" "Wanting to" does not mean "have a right to" No, it's not intrinsic. It stems from a congressional power. As long as congress deems it so, the right exists in the US. But you're confusing the (IMO flawed) economic system with the underlying right. You don't have to sign a record deal to create music, though at one time you were forced to by the prevailing economic conditions if you wanted to make a good living at it. The publisher is still free to make copies available for free. What is required is convincing them that this will be to their economic benefit. Most have resisted thus far, because they are dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut. ———— I'm a part-time cartoonist. I come up with an idea and I put it down on paper, which takes some effort and some (quantity is debatable) amount of creative talent. Why don't I have the right to choose who sees it? If I give someone a copy, why can't I have an implicit agreement that they will not pass along another copy, unless I have given them permission?

Because the tranforms are not linear, you can't "daisy-chain' them in this fashion (which is another version of what Atheist said). You either have to compare two frames directly or use the correct velocity addition formula http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html#c1

This is also misleading because the statements are not equivalent. Other factors contributed to the relative stasis of temperature in that time frame, but that does not mean that CO2 wasn't the largest forcing (primary driver, largest contributor, or however you want to say it). Temperature change is due to multiple contributions that have both heating and cooling effects. The size of the forcing and the size of the temperature change at any given time will not, in general, match, because of the other contributions.

Well, there's Euler's formula, [math]e^{i\theta} = cos\theta + isin\theta[/math] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula

Examples?

Because the author created it? The government didn't take away the right to copy; the right never existed in the first place. And the artists (or other copyright owners) are free to make the work available for free download. It's their call.

Which is what you get when you set the gravitational and centripetal force terms equal, which has already been discussed. (since g = Gm/R2)

Math axioms are not beliefs so much as a set of conditions under which the conclusions will be true. And, as I pointed out before, religious belief and scientific belief use two different definitions of the word; one is faith-based, and the other is evidence-based. You can't prove the premises true as in math, because science is inductive. But if you can test the implications of them, and do so in a falsifiable way, then you can gain confidence that the premises are actually true. Religious belief does not do this.

The "Heavy Boot"-ers

They are the same thing. So, no.

Yes, but growing them also absorbs CO2. Fossil fuels represent carbon that has been stored in the ground for a long time. Renewable crops cycle what already in the system.

PE is negative, so you've got the wrong sign.

If the author has the exclusive right to the material, it would seem that you do not have the right to copy that material. Copying without permission is a violation of the right of the author.

All theories deal with prediction. If you make no predictions, you have no theory. Theories also have bodies of evidence that support that prediction; the predictions have to be falsifiable to be of any value. You claim a structure; how do you test the model? You need to make predictions, and make them before you know the answer. Then you test them in a way that can falsify your model.