swansont

I have yet to see a post from you that has much scientific merit. You make claims, but they are not backed up by any corroborating evidence and in many cases are simply wrong. Scientific claims must include an avenue for falsifiability. There are loads of people with their own pet theories that "explain" a whole bunch, but they don't bother with testable predictions, and if you don't do that, there's no legitimate complaint about posts being moved out of the science forums. It's speculation and/or pseudoscience, and that's where it belongs. It does not have a place in discussions involving established science.

Is there a pressure difference when the air is hot?

If you mean in this thread, it's because the bulk of the discussion was explaining how magnetism actually works and correcting misconceptions. The OP was more about a misconception of physics than a serious proposal of an alternative explanation. I mean, it didn't have swirly gifs or drawings or anything like that, so how serious could it be? Your post received a warning quickly because I was online at the time, and you've been warned — amply — about this before, and yet persist in the same behavior.

pssst... "Aurora," not "aura."

AWT is to be discussed in the speculations forum only. Not as an answer to discussions in the physics section. This is not a difficult concept.

Things that look like homework aren't going to get answered. If you get stuck, show what you've done and people will help.

Into which chapter is he going to put it? If it's a book about the periodic table, and he's trying to explain all of the different periodic tables there are and have been, he's going to include it out of completeness. That doesn't make it an endorsement.

I was just reading the paper, trying to wade through it, and I don't think the emissions vs concentrations are necessarily part of the model. They use the term "emission rates" in the main part of the paper, but in Appendix B, where they go into the details, it's all concentrations — I think it's poor use of terminology. And if you look at 1990-2000, it's actually scenario "C" that most closely matches reality (assuming the Mauna Loa data is reality) of a linear 1.5 ppmv increase per year. Scenario "B" assumes a 1% annual increase in concentrations in that time frame, which is too aggressive — it's only after 2000 that scenario "B" is a closer match, because "C" assumes no further increase in CO2.

I count a couple of wiki posts, an arXiv link and an article or two. One abstract on detecting the rest mass of the photon (which does not mean they expect to get a nonzero answer). Where are the peer-reviewed papers using the massive photons? The bosons in BEC are already Bosons, i.e. before the experiment starts, unlike Cooper pairs which are Bosonic Couplings of Fermions that form in a transition. It's the interactions that allow the BEC to form, and why it's much more difficult to form the Fermionic analogue, a Fermi degenerate gas. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "interact mutually" Look at your link. There's a picture. It has one photon in it, not two. The nucleus is necessary because you can't conserve momentum in [math]\gamma \rightarrow e^-e^+[/math] without it. Simple isn't acceptable if it doesn't give the right answer. That's the problem with cranks though. They aren't interested in the same things as mainstream science, and think that it's science's fault. Science is about explaining how nature behaves, but not necessarily why it behaves that way. You want the metaphysics department, two buildings down. Cranks seems to have this ingrained fear of making a specific, testable prediction, without which one simply cannot demonstrate whether the explanation is wrong, and being verifiably wrong is the goal. That way we can keep eliminating crap, and whatever is leftover is worth something.

Cooperation is expected a priori. Posts that detract from the discussion are fair game for relocation or deletion.

Anything with a half-life longer than 100 million years or so could be a remnant. Of course if the half life is 100 million years, the abundance will be tiny, but as it gets longer than that you will start having the possibility of macroscopic amounts. If it's in a decay chain with a long half-life, you don't know if it was from the supernova or the decay. Other candidates would be K-40 and Rb-87. Those are used in radiometric dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

A hump, er, bump. It's May 8 tomorrow.

You don't get to redefine terms to suit you, which is basically what you're trying to do here. For the photon to behave as it does, from relativity, its rest mass must be zero. If it were not, there would be ramifications that can be measured. These put an upper experimental bound on the value, and it's consistent with zero. If you have another formalism that works with a massive photon, publish it. But when in the physics section, we use established physics as the basis for our discussions. It is strawman crap when you make the claim that science is a religion, and use that to attack arguments. Standard physics is the baseline. If you think it's wrong, then you have to present valid arguments and empirical data. I don't have to justify my stance on equations and derivations that are easily obtained on the web or in physics textbooks. One photon, not a pair. That will come as a surprise to people doing Bose-Einstein Condensation, who depend on Bosons to interact.

What does wiki say about rhetorical questions? If you think delving into semantics is the tactic to take here, knock yourself out. Doesn't make your underlying argument any stronger, though. Finding a pattern isn't the same as understanding the physics behind the pattern. I refer you to the Hydrogen spectra I discussed some moments ago. How little is known by whom? I know some people who know next to nothing about the inner workings of atoms. I know some who know a great deal. The correlation with having a physics degree is quite strong.

IMO it depends on context. This is politics, so there are reasons other than scientific that come into play in making a decision. The unforgivable action is if the science is twisted to appear to support the decision when it does not.

If I'm reading it right, it means "cubic" I think 1 m^3 would be the equivalent way of stating it.

It comes out of the equations, because you can't transform yourself into the photon's frame. An object traveling at c can't have a rest mass. The equations diverge. The momentum is E/c, and this relationship matches up quite well with experiment. There are other instances of experimental data that support the zero rest mass: from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html "It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances. Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10-27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method." There are a couple of references listed on that page. More, presumably, if you care to Google. Your demonstrated knowledge here begins and ends with E=mc^2, and you have the temerity to write this? I'm reminded of the line from the movie "Arthur." "I really wouldn't know, sir. I'm just a servant. On the other hand, go screw yourself." I mean, seriously. Do you expect any kind of reasonable exchange if you spout this kind of fallacy-ridden appeal to conspiracy, "it's a religion" strawman crap? Your request for justification of standard equations implies you've never even picked up a textbook on this. And yet you come here saying "it's all wrong," but you haven't made the effort to find out what you're arguing against.

Finding a pattern is not the same as finding the governing principle. Balmer, Paschen and Lyman series, etc. spectra were discovered before the Hydrogen atom was modeled, and that went through some iterations. Who are the "we" to whom you refer in that last sentence?

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I agree — the forcing tied to temperature increase fits scenario B, but the emissions converting to concentration and forcings doesn't work. The Mauna Loa numbers are increasing by about 0.4% a year. I'm not familiar enough with the model to know how separable the two issues are, but my naive assumption is that they are. The number that gets discussed often is the climate sensitivity, which is dependent on atmospheric concentration. Anyone know where all the "missing" CO2 is?

Option C. The resonator remains at rest, so the resonator's mass in indeed larger. You would see this if you had a standing wave inside the resonator. The interesting case is, as you mention, of small numbers of photons, or a single photon, where you might actually observe the recoil of the resonator as the photon reflects. In that case, the resonator has momentum, but this reverses itself at the opposite reflection. In the center-of-momentum frame, you should still observe an increase in mass; the object has more energy and no translational kinetic energy (the average of p goes to zero for times long compared to 2d/c). A resonator is too massive to actually do this and observe the difference, but something that you can do is mass spectrometry on atoms, and if a nucleus is in an excited state, it will have a different mass. And scientists have observed this. I'll try and find a link. edit: found one, blogged about it "Discovery of a Nuclear Isomer in [sup65[/sup]Fe with Penning Trap Mass Spectrometry,” by Block, et. al.

Wrong equation. [math]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/math]

Math is not binary. Planck's constant is not immeasurably small. ( I have a vague recollection of determining it in modern physics lab a few decades ago). Those are errors of fact. Science is not a religious belief system. That's just a smear tactic. Hutchison effect and ZPE possess all the hallmarks of quantum snake oil. The burden-of-proof ball is in your court.

How is it you can derive atomic closed shells and nuclear closed shells from this principle, and yet, they do not have the same values?