swansont

I think it may be an engineering term. I don't recall hearing it in physics classes, though certainly the concept of an electric dipole was covered.

The PRL article search function wasn't finding it for some reason, and I tried searching by author, which obviously didn't work when I used Osborne, since it turns out I completely missed the "Wu, et. al" in the text. I eventually had to go in and do a manual search. Just pointing this out in case anyone else does it. It looked to me like you were referencing the PRL breakdown of articles and quoting the abstract, and that was a bad assumption on my part.

Rotations were offered as an example of a non-commuting operation. How do I conclude this? "Take rotations in space, for example. They differ fundamentally from ordinary numbers in one important respect: the order of rotations matters (see Diagram). Rotations do not commute." But there are lots of operations that don't commute, so you can't conclude that Christian's work is based on rotations based on the article. I was commenting on the Quantum Untanglement article only, so searching Christian's paper is moot. "geometry" showed up exactly once in my search. "Smolin and Fotini Markopoulou, also at the Perimeter Institute, have been exploring how hints of that deeper theory might emerge from primitive notions of geometry. Their research centres on the concept of loop quantum gravity ..." If Christian's work is centered on geometry, blame Mark Buchanan for writing a crappy summary, because he doesn't mention it.

You can do better. Make it only a 100 ppm. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24 "In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis)." All these people who claim AGW is false aren't publishing their analyses in the scientific journals. Maybe because most of them aren't doing climate research? If they aren't doing the related science, you can't validly include them in a survey of scientific consensus.

Yes, it is dilation. But how is dilation not a change?

Would a content aether be a happy medium?

What is your cite? Osborne is not the author of the paper. Article 173201 is "Demonstration of an Area-Enclosing Guided-Atom Interferometer for Rotation Sensing," Saijun Wu, Edward Su, and Mara Prentiss The new part of this is how they increase the area of the interferometer to make it more sensitive; atom interferometry has been around >15 years.

But which is the cause and which the effect?

It was/is experimentally determined, not derived. http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosp2/p2-01.htm http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu391-2.htm

You still can't use the physics that's not valid in that frame.

It proves no such thing. It cites Davis and Rawls' study, and then describes a small survey of NMR and ESR magnets, showing what the field orientation is. There is no detail about what they purportedly do. "Using magnetic fields to enhance metabolism" is not necessarily the same as "using one field orientation to enhancet metabolism." But, in general, the existence of scam artists is not proof that they are right. As uncool notes, finding the direction of the field is easy. That's what a magnetometer does. (probably a fluxgate device) The scam part is figuring out of a field in a particular direction is due to a north pole or south pole — it's both. Always.

http://timlambert.org/2004/08/gwarming2/ Points out that Singer's contention that atmospheric data shows no warming is because he cherry-picked the data But it now seems that Fred Singer has flip-flopped a bit. Now, global warming exists, but is natural. His new book is "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years" A rebuttal to some of the claims made by Singer's co-author in the latest book http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/ Anyway, the underlying point to all of this is that this argument about "no scientific consensus" is not citing what's happening in the scientific literature, it's citing popular literature, where you can say pretty much anything you want and not back it up. I'll readily concede that there is no popular consensus. But the contention that there is no scientific consensus has to cite science results, not quotes from popular-press material. Where are the peer-reviewed papers agreeing with you?

Yeah. Don't attribute to stupidity that which can be attributed to miscommunication. (The latter happens a lot.)

Sl-1 was probably prompt supercritical. Realistically it had to be, any increase in power requires supercriticality, but it's really semantics. Prompt critical is more a boundary that you cross than a state you are in.

That's just a matter of making the beam approximately monoenergetic. I imagine it's pretty easy to do, assuming you have an electron beam source to begin with.

Keep your alternative views in their own threads in speculations. When you come up with experimental evidence that you're right, then you will be right. Not until, just like the rest of science. You don't get special treatment. And, as Severian points out, this has nothing to do with string theory.

Yes, the article mentions Smolin and LQG as a geometry argument — once. It's not the article "in a nutshell." Other people and approaches are mentioned as well, and the main point of the article was work by Christian.

Ad hominem and strawman. We're off to a good, strong, scientific start. No consensus in 1991, which was 16 years ago. No relevance to any claim that there is a consensus more recently than that. Are you quoting Science here, or somebody who cited Science? Ah, the whole thing appears to be lifted (and not cited) from a review of Fred Singer's book. I'll note for now that it's not a peer-reveiwed work, and see if I can find some rebuttals to his objections. As you later note, this is irrelevant. Science isn't a democracy. So what was the point of this? The way you use "fact" 'theory" and "proof" strongly imply that you don't know their respective definitions in scientific use. Are you just making this up, or can you back any of it up with evidence? So where did all of these numbers come from? (I hope you can sense a pattern here) No, this is incorrect. The judge said the film was broadly accurate. He required a disclaimer be read with the movie, because it differs from the consensus view on some points — the consensus including the IPCC, so this is not the refutation you appear to think it is (and I predicted this would happen). He wasn't judging the scientific validity of the film, as the link (and the link inside that) shows. Also, the point of contention wasn't that CO2 rises preceded warming in the past, it was the claim that the CO2 made no contribution to the warming.

Ummmmmm. No. This is just so far off base it's hard to comment on it. Relativity does not mean "anything goes" and I don't know what you're talking about with correlation. Controlled fusion being difficult is primarily an engineering issue, not a fault in the science.

Being an anti-relativity crank means never having to explain yourself. (lest anyone feel this is persecution, the second line of his web site — to which I will not link — is "THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS WRONG") Posts: 11 Threads started: 10 Pretty much exclusively hit-and-run, and apparently not interested in defending his claims.

The shorter way to say what insane_alien was telling you is "multiply it by 2" It takes a certain amount of time to go 1 foot. To go 2 feet, it takes twice as long. Actually, that should be 983,571,056.16 That's a really big number — almost a billion. So 1 foot takes about a billionth of a second. 2 feet takes 2 billionths of a second. It gets a little tiring to keep saying "billionth of a second" so people have come up with a shorthand: nano. It means a billionth. So it takes light a nanosecond to go a foot. 2 nanoseconds to go 2 feet.

I'm also not a follower of the details of these experiments, but I wonder if it's been investigated to see if entangled particles are in a superposition and merely oscillating between the two states. This is such a fundamental issue that I can't imagine that it hasn't been investigated and disproven, but I've never checked to be sure.

But you haven't explained why. Anyway, it's moot. Claus Jonsson did an electron double-slit experiment back in 1961, and it was later done with single electrons in the apparatus in the 70's. Atoms have been sent through multiple-slit transmission gratings and the interference onserved. I've worked in the field. The guy in the next office did one of the experiments. (I made gratings and built the slow atomic beam apparatus for the project on which I worked, but I graduated before interference was attempted) Back to the drawing board for you.

Misdirection that is irrelevant to this discussion. Again, irrelevant to the current discussion, though educational in terms of climate feedback. Can you back this up with some science? Irrelevant ad-hom. Wasn't my argument, really, so you missed the point. Invoking a conspiracy isn't particularly scientific. But there is the implication that the status-quo doesn't involve money and power. Are you claiming that nobody benefits from the status quo? Certainly the greenhouse effect is a misnomer, but that's really an argument about semantics at this point. I don't accept these claims as being valid without backing evidence, especially since I know that some claims are wrong. Gore's movie does contain science and has been termed "broadly accurate" with regard to the IPCC findings, which is the consensus view. Are there critics? Yes. You'll find that true of pretty much all science (there are flat-earthers out there, for crying out loud), but as far as claiming that more science and scientists that disagree than agree, well, back it up. I don't think you can. "don't know everything" =! "know nothing" Where does 0.0017 come from? (or do I not want to know?)

A potential well exists whenever you have a gradient of a force (i.e. F varies with position). Entropy is always there, though it may not be easy to calculate.