swansont

No, they teleported the state of the molecule, i.e. information was transferred. "Teleported" has a very specific meaning in that context, and it's not the same as used on Star Trek.

Ignoring all the rest, how would this mean the universe is 26 billion years old? The speed of light is an inherent part of atomic structure, in the fine structure constant (alpha). If c was changing, then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change. There hasn't been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed (there has been the occasional paper claiming it, but you need someone to repeat the measurements), and the rest is all consistent with no change.

Who are the "we" that have these laws?

I was answering this question: The answer is no, there is such a thing as a transverse Doppler shift.

The person "chasing" the light considers himself to be at rest. His frame has to see light travelling at c. That limitation has certain consequences, one of which is that Galilean transformations aren't correct (e.g. speeds won't add linearly)

If the speeds are not relativistic then there will be no shift. If v is large enough, you will see a transverse Doppler shift, from the time dilation of the moving object.

Damn. My irony meter just melted.

What is the relatonship between the location of the nodes (or antinodes) and whether the pipe is open- or closed-ended?

You haven't changed any physical laws. Light speed is constant to any inertial observer. An accelerating observer will not, in general, measure the speed of light to be c.

That sounds right. What's the issue with this?

It's not the same experiment if the train is moving relative to the bridge in one case, and not moving relative to the bridge in the other.

But they are server solutions, as Pangloss noted. They normally run when the server is on. If the server isn't running, you're not going to get the mail anyway.

What equations can you use here?

I don't think anyone is contending that the historical cycles were initiated by increases in greenhouse gases. The data show that there was indeed a lag. And no, it doesn't prove that CO2 is not the driver for the current trend.

Did this in grad school, where LN is readily available. It just boils off and becomes part of the air around you, which is mostly nitrogen anyway. The "smoke" was partially-condensed vapor (i.e. very small droplets of the liquid) that was still evaporating. Since the cream freezes quickly, it makes small crystals, which is what is supposed to make it nice and smooth.

All of which belies your stance that it should be a single-parameter model explaining past cycles.

The shorter answer is that the relationship is not linear (or quadratic). The solution diverges at v = c.

You don't assume it, you demonstrate it. You include it because the science tells you how much of a contribution it makes. We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can calculate how much of an insulating effect that has on the planet. Saying "the mechanism is not needed" is science done backwards (i.e not science at all). You discard mechanisms if you can show their contribution is small, not because you only want to have one term in your model. The "apart from political considerations" is, frankly, crap. People who do their work based on such considerations had better get their research money from ideological sources, because scientists aren't going to publish such work (if it can actually pass peer review) only to have it demolished, and their reputation trashed, by scientists will gladly prove them wrong.

More rhetorical than sarcastic, but it's still valid. If CO2 has a warming effect now, how could it not have a warming effect before? Did the physics change? No. Ergo, it contributed, at some level, to the warming. And we've been over this. It is not contended that the CO2 was the initial cause of the warming in past cycles. Not consistent with your overly simplistic model. You have assumed CO2, and only CO2 feedback, and found that it does not fit the model, and yet you conclude that the model is valid, so CO2 can have no effect. But you have not addressed your assumption of only one element causing warming. That's a failure of logic and very bad science.

I don't work in this field, so there's some conjecture here- I think this points out why gravitons do not behave like virtual photons. The retardation of gravity in GR is different (gravity vector from the sun doesn't point in the exact direction the photons come from; gravity is here now and the light taes the eight minutes), and the behavior of gravitons would have to be consistent. Space is already curved from the sun, so wherever the spaceship appears, it would feel the gravity. That indicates to me that gravitons interact with each other somehow. The sun would not feel the gravity from the ship fo eight minutes, but the ship would feel it immediately. The appearance of the ship would alter he curvature already present.

Then c isn't changing.

There's a lot more basic physics that you are ignoring. If CO2 can account for warming now, how does it not account for warming in the past? Has the physics changed? Your characterization of feedback loops assumes you have the energy to drive the system. Microphone feedback gets really loud when you crank up the amplifier. What happens when you don't? You also have to look at other factors in feedback. Not all feedback gain is proportional gain. You're trying to apply a simple model to a complex system, and it doesn't work. But you can't conclude that CO2 had no effect in the past cycles as a result. The model is wrong — it's not simple.

I'm guessing it's the link in this post.

Is "messy soap" an oxymoron?

Ivory has air bubbles in it, which is why it floats, which is probably why you get a different response from it than other brands. You can get fun things to happen if you nuke a marshmallow, too, because of the air bubbles. [repsonsible adult mode]But if you aren't the owner of the microwave, get permission first. i.e. kids, ask your parents[/responsible adult mode]