swansont

I haven't been able to find anything that shows how much gets through, but the sun is a blackbody at about 6000K and radiates a lot in the longer wavelengths. When some satellites are lined up with the sun their signals are basically washed out during the transit because of the solar radiation. So some must be getting through. The radiation from the sun will be absorbed and re-emitted at lower temperatures, meaning that the radiation from terrestrial objects is peaked at lower wavelengths. The average human radiates about 100 watts, and almost none of that is in the visible. So it's IR and longer wavelengths. Is anybody worried that RF from people is causing problems?

Thanks. I was misremembering what I had read. I just ran across another citation that listed ~20% as the field minimum.

How would oxygen be "completely cut off" ?

Since we probably don't have data much past what is shown in the map, it's probably premature to conclude that this is part of a pole shift. That, plus the fact that the pole is actually moving north in the map. Further, from what I've read, the overall field drops by 10-25%, not to that value (I think I referenced this in the other thread on the topic). Do you have links that claim otherwise?

That's assuming the barriers to the shields are technological. Many of them are contrary to the laws of physics.

That didn't transport the energy.

What flooding? There don't seem to be polar landmasses at the time (from maps of the Cretaceous I've run across), and melting icebergs/icecaps don't raise the water level at all - they already displace their mass.

Now you just have to prove they can affect your brain.

Using nanotechnology? They've been doing it for years. That processor in your computer was made using nanotechnology, and it's macroscopic. Perhaps you should be specific in what particular nanotechnology you have in mind. It's a pretty wide-encompassing term.

If you mean the cosmic background, measured by Penzias and Wilson, they noticed it was still there when they pointed their antenna into deep space, and had a siderial day period.

c varying in time leads to energy not being conserved. c not being the same for all observers means that Maxwells equations no longer satisfy the wave equation (as RE touched upon). Which means that your radio no longer sees an EM wave if you are moving with respect to the source. Lots of weird stuff would be happening.

Scientists are generally of the attitude that they try to avoid any "you know what I meant" statements in technical discussions. Imprecision and ambiguity lead to confusion. While that may be good in e.g. politics, it's bad in science.

Generally no. Beta decays result in a "reshuffling" of the energy states and that usually leaves you in an excited state. Alpha decay can be modelled as a barrier tunneling problem, so it's the least tightly bound neutrons and protons that escape, and the reaction probability is highest when the alpha takes all the available energy.

Actually there are 82. All elements have radioactive isotopes. Technetium and Promethium, however, have no stable isotopes.

I have only intermittent access at the moment (and it's dialup ) I'm not a fan of "more stable" in describing an unstable nucleus - either it's stable or it's not. It can, however, become less unstable. Maybe just semantics, maybe not. Many alpha decays don't emit gammas because the daughter is left in the ground state. Alpha decay is "ground state selective"

Rotation doesn't create gravity. Acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, according to GR, but not synonymous.

Thanks. I now recall it was for an x-ray. Here is an article about radioactive isotopes used in tracers and in treatment.

C-14 is probably not widely used for therapy because the half-life is so long (5730 years IIRC). You want something that will decay fairly rapidly. I recall injesting Barium for a test. Don't know which isotope.