swansont

You forgot the disclaimer: All characters and other entities appearing here are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, dead or alive, or other real-life entities, past or present, is purely coincidental.

Just a general observation that saying that something absorbs in the IR isn’t specific enough to know how it ties in to the greenhouse effect The condensation from particulates that TheVat mentions is what I recall as being an important effect. (I recall a colloquium where it was shown you could track ships from satellites from the condensation caused by their smokestack emissions on an otherwise cloudless area of the ocean)

Shade of visible radiation. And the IR behavior wouldn’t necessarily be the same. The solar IR spectrum is weighted toward near-IR (1-2 microns), while the earth emissions are mid-IR (out near 10 microns) so strong absorption near 1-2 microns would shield us from solar but not trap earth emission.

Can you demonstrate that this is true?

! Moderator Note No. You posted some stuff 14 years ago and then returned after a 13-year hiatus, and, 14 years ago, had some exchanges with someone who is AFAIK not a scientist. As for the rest, airing issues with how science works is not an appropriate response to the thread.

Everything has a cost/benefit. A bigger ribcage or other protection means more weight and less flexibility. More weight means slower movement and/or more calories required. What would be the point of protecting the digestive system if you starve?

! Moderator Note “episode” is not the typical description of a book. “Book Talk” is for discussion of books.

! Moderator Note The sandbox is for testing posts, e.g. seeing if LaTeX renders properly. Responses are not appropriate.

In most cases. But the underlying principle is that you will get the same physics result, regardless of your choice of frame of reference.

Your post was hidden because of the sockpuppet reference. Had it just been a throwaway amusing comment, I would have left it alone. The difference being that a sockpuppet (or troll) accusation is directed at a person, and much more likely to elicit a response, which derails the thread. As Phi notes, we need more than posting on the same topic. We’ve had situations where multiple students from a university class posted on a topic. This isn’t unprecedented.

What other “kinds” of KE are there? I only know of the “kind” that is given by 1/2 mv^2 It can be applied to different particles and be measured/calculated at different times (hence you have initial and final as two common times) Reference frames are incredibly useful for those that actually solve physics problems. No. the difference in kinetic energy represents the change in kinetic energy at two different points in time. It is not a definition of KE.

It’s not math, it’s experimental data.

If you can explain how accusations of sockpuppetry (or trolling) are on-topic, I will restore your post. If mod actions are going to chill such discussion, I count that as a positive.

I’m guessing people with respiratory issues would love this. Like Seattle residents during the forest fires this past summer. What do mean “we”? I personally sacrificed twice as many last year as compared to a decade ago.

How is this known to be the case?

This has an effect on the normal force, which is what we perceive, but not on gravity.

We can see from the pictures that the tank is around 20 cm long, and maybe it’s 12 cm tall and perhaps 8 cm deep. That’s ~2 liters (edit: i.e. a half gallon, as periphery note). 4.4 lbs if it’s all water. So maybe 7 or 8 lbs, plus a few more for the glass. 10 lbs or so.

Can you explain why you think this is the case?

No, that’s not the reason. The ratio for nuclei stable vs beta decay grows larger as Z increases. And that ratio is not the reason for stability, merely an indicator. As Z increases, the electrostatic repulsion increases, as it has an infinite range, but the nuclear attraction saturates, owing to its finite range. You need more neutrons in larger nuclei. What the nuclei are “trying to obtain” is being in the lowest energy state. If a beta decay gets them to a lower energy state, they will decay. Similar to a ball rolling downhill to minimize its potential energy. same as above - spontaneous decay will happen because the final state is lower in energy. The mass is lower.

I’ve seen this claim before, but it’s actually erroneous. It’s true that if the GPS clocks were not adjusted they would accumulate a time difference of ~38 microseconds a day as compared to ground clocks (and ct would be around 10 km), but this would not show up as a positioning error in GPS, since the GPS clocks nominally run at the same rate, and the trilateration uses timing differences between signals from the GPS clocks. These clocks would random walk away from each other, and accumulate differences from orbital variations, if not synched up. But this would be on the scale of nanoseconds, not microseconds, per day. One of the reasons the clocks are adjusted is so that you can do clock corrections from the ground station, which uses time from the USNO master clock. If you didn’t do that, you would be forced to have clocks synchronize within the constellation (whose clocks are less stable than the master clock) which would be less efficient and less precise, so you’d potentially end up with a larger positioning error. But measured in meters, not kilometers

Did you? One can’t help but notice you haven’t provided any calculations in support of your proposal. Must pass all tests, yes. Must conduct all tests, no. As Markus has already noted, there are other ways to test GR, and we would have noticed issues. Nobody has denied this, or even hinted at it.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

Yes, it’s just a different scenario, but this range has been tested. Slower and faster speeds, and deeper and shallower locations in a gravitational potential. No new physics is proposed that this would reveal, and no new limits are going to be tested. No compelling reason to spend from a limited budget since that could mean some other science would not take place.

That’s supposed to be the focus: inquiring about claims and/or responding with mainstream material that rebut or support them

But it is about the data range. When you see experimental GR or QM results reported, it’s invariably because the new results cover that new ground. As far as the “proper” calculation goes, you are free to do it.