Klaynos

Some meteorology satellites have active microwave instruments. The answers to the question is still no though. The energy involved is tiny compared to the atmosphere.

In the UK it would create a £12 billion hole in tax receipts https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ Smoking rates have dropped with increased rules against it and increased taxes. It's now very expensive and smoking inside (excluding private homes) is pretty much nonexistent.

! Moderator Note Fails to meet our minimum requirements for speculations. You may not reintroduce this topic. I'd strongly advise that before you start telling subject experts that they're wrong in the future that you at least understand the basics. Which for any physics means lots of maths.

Knowing about this and being able to run the calculations is pretty critical to the business models of solar farms. If you don't know how much energy is incident on the surface you can't work out whether you'll make a profit or a loss. Shockingly our calculations are pretty accurate. There are some organisations that have good models that even take cloud cover into account with climatological or forecasting.

! Moderator Note That's not how we work here. The burden of proof is on you, why should we bother to back up your ideas? Pony up or this thread gets closed.

I'm intrigued, do you feel like you've been nice to everyone here? A simple yes or no would be good.

You need to report them using the report post button. That way we have an auditable record or reports, comments and actions. Mentioning in a thread that they exist is unlikely to result in action. We're volunteers we don't have the time nor the inclination to track down posts you mention in passing.

I've never been banned from a forum despite having been a member in many over the years. Yet some people find they are banned from every forum they visit, they are almost always the same people who blame the forum rather than their behaviour. Yet this correlation never occurs to them, it's a shame really as if they just modified their behaviour to follow some simple rules they might find a forum they can really enjoy without being banned. In OPs case i feel rather sorry for him and would strongly suggest he sought some professional with which to talk through some of his ideas.

I don't think it's a well poised question. For one thing the definitions are not well defined, and the forced optional answers do not cover all of the options. A better question might be why has humanity evolved to have religions? Is it a further development of superstition, which we've observed in other animals such as pigeons?

For the interested reader, you can derive Kepler's orbits from Newtonian gravity (which is what was requested of op). You can read how to do this here: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/KeplersLaws.htm

! Moderator Note Do not post your own hypothesis in other people's threads or in the mainstream fora. That is thread hijacking.

With rough exteriors as well.

Technology removing jobs is not a new thing. What proportion of people work on food growing now compared to the 1500s or clothing production compared to the 1800s? Whilst a lot of the jobs we do now may be automated there will be other, probably safer more relaxed jobs for us.

Pihole, block the ads across your network at the dns level. Bear in mind that these sites might be doing other stupid things like lots of flash, badly written JavaScript etc... I've noticed a correlation with high CPU and local newspaper web pages.

I would love to be able to justify Lego. But i just can't. I did build a mecanno proof of concept for a rover I'm going to build. I'd like to do it with something like mecanno, makerblock, or Lego but the price is too high. I think I'll end up hand machining all of the parts. First from perspex and in the future maybe alluminium.

Without the maths and some understanding of the physics you're trying to use all you have is done incomprehensible, meaningless stories. This isn't science nor engineering it's make believe.

Step one sketch out the data.

And yet more questions. How do you trap photons in a bose Einstein condensate? How do you vacuum pump a dye in? How does that extract thermal energy yet remain at room temperature? You've not answered any of my previous questions. You're just telling stories, go write a science fiction book if you really want to take this idea further. It's not real there are far too many science misconceptions.

Looking at the quotes here it looks like they didn't use the 2002 data because the measurement accuracy was poorer. Therefore including this data would increase the errors on the outcome (error analysis can show you how this works). David, I've notice across several of your post that you seem to be unfamiliar with errors and precision in experimental physics. If suggest some readding around this. John R. Taylor's Introduction to Error Analysis is the book i normally suggest.

I was thinking if you knew the lines and score you could work it out. But I now think I'm wrong.

I'd suggest you limit the area in the image your code had to analyse and use an ocr package. This is still going to be worse than finding an open source Tetris and getting it to extract what you need.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. You may discuss your idea but not advertise your book. I'm also moving this to speculations, please review the special rules for this area.

It is best to compare all 3 taking into account the error bars on them. Normally an easy first check it to see whether the new idea falls within the error bounds of the existing model which is known to encompass the error of any experiment within the applicable domain. I think that is what Strange is trying to say and what you would also agree with? Once you have consistency with the existing model it is then useful to show consistency with experiments where they have tighter error bounds and to find places where the two predictions vary and an experiment can be performed with sufficient accuracy to discriminate.

Rubbish is not really the right word, it showed the effect but the signal was much much smaller than the what should be possible using he method we were looking at. We decided not to do the method they used as we were aiming high. The signal they measured isn't really strong enough for the potential commercial applications and we'd already shown the physics worked on different structures. I have a whole chapter in my thesis on how not to make the samples and one probable measurement of the effect. The sample wasn't regular or large enough to model using sensible symmetries and computers were not really capable of modelling the whole sample area. Even our crappy sample showed a signal much strong than they got with something that looked much nicer. Now the area I work in there are only 3 or 4 experts on it and we're all pretty open with each other as to what we're doing to try and reduce duplication but produce results that are intercomparable.