swansont

A ball of mass m, moving at speed v, has mass+kinetic energy. Why/how does that energy move at c?

And since mutations are a part of evolution, how can you justify this claim? Bollocks. Science doesn’t explain how a star is created? How atoms are created? How antimatter is created?

1. There is no center 2. Picking a point is a choice, rather than having it dictated by physics.

! Moderator Note I see no model, or any attempt to provide evidence or a testable prediction for this speculation, as required by the rules.

I don’t know how you got the impression that I didn’t But is the Carbon already there, in the organism, or does the process of fossilization remove carbon from the environment? I was under the impression it was the former. Can you provide a reference to it being the latter? e.g. a shell made of calcium carbonate already has carbon in it. Your claim was that fossilization is the sink, not the formation of the shell. Where does that article mention fossilization?

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your blog is literally the example we use of what’s not allowed in rule 2.7

In the sense that "wrong" is impractical. Mixing frames leads to wrong answers, as you would be using relative values of parameters incorrectly.

Quite the opposite. The center-of-momentum frame is often extremely useful. Or the center-of-mass. Or one object being at rest. The thing is that the physics works just as well in any other inertial frame. There is nothing special about any inertial frame, from a physics perspective. You can use whichever one makes the problem easiest to solve. In any given problem, you may not know the history, so you can't tell if there had been a force applied to the object.

Moore isn't a climate expert. Where did he get it? I'm betting you don't know that. Yes. That's not in contention. No, I seriously doubt that. Fossilization as a carbon sink? How does that work, changing bone into minerals capturing carbon? And the graph you posted showed 150 ppm, going to zero in the future (15 million years in the future, but still). How does any of this support that claim? Here the graph flattens out at about ~2 mya. I don't see how this can be claimed to support the graph in question. You seem to be missing the point: the only data we have from planets is, at best, several decades old. We don't have a handle on longer-term cycles that might be present. If it was the sun, we should see warming everywhere, in a predictable fashion based on distance from the sun. Triton, for example. You can calculate how much further away it is, and how much energy it gets compared to us. The temperature rise should be related to that. If Triton's temperature went up 7 ºF in a certain window of time, what should have happened on earth in the same time frame? Did that happen? Do some science! (I have to think we would have seen a larger rise in temperature than Triton would) Note that the moon rise in temperature (which you dismiss as silly with no actual scientific analysis) does not happen in the same time window. Again, if the moon's temperature went up in the 70s, why didn't that happen on earth? (the temperature was pretty flat https://phys.org/news/2017-01-earth-global-temperature.html) We are exposed to the same sun, after all. This any-port-in-a-storm attempt at rebuttal lacks any scientific merit whatsoever. It's crap. It might fool some of the people some of the time, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is devoid of intellectual honesty.

Evaporation in general takes place at a temperature lower than the boiling point. What do you know about the relationship between temperature vs the energy of an individual molecule?

Hw does the center remain fixed when the ball moves away from it (and again toward it)? You are violating conservation of momentum in your animation, so it's no wonder you conclude that momentum isn't conserved. You have a force on the ball, but you aren't acknowledging it. Or you are essentially assuming an infinite mass is connected at the center. Put another way, you are showing an accelerating reference frame, not an inertial one, so Newton's laws can't be applied. Pick your poison. Show me a real system that acts this way and we can talk.

! Moderator Note A tangential discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119832-relativity-split-from-can-relativity-be-applied-to-light-speed/

I'm not sure what the "focus of the barycenter" is. But the answer is probably no, since I don't think that tells you the distance to the earth. Where did that come from? Because it's not consistent with graphs I have seen from credible sources, and it's also a crude extrapolation based on unknown information. You need to provide sources for your claims without prompting. It's the proper protocol, and will save time. I'm not sure why you think it's "devastating" From the very first paragraph of your link: "It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise." And then they provide an albedo map. It's also only over the last ~30 years, since we don't have data from before that, so it's irresponsible to pretend that you can draw conclusions similar to what we know about the earth. There is no reasonable way that you can conclude that this has any impact at all on the discussion of AGW. That's not a credible source. Marc Morano (born 1968)[1] is a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the website ClimateDepot.com.[2] ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that promotes climate change denial,[3].[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano The author, Lorne Gunter, is also not a scientist, and is oft-criticized for getting the science wrong. It's also a bad article, as it cites no actual research. Just some snippets of "scientists say" and then quotes from known climate-denialists Where did you get these? Legitimate science sources, or from hacks?

No such thing as "actually stationary"; there is only "stationary with respect to something" There is no physics test you can do to tell whether you are moving or not, in an absolute sense.

TSI is at its lowest when the earth is at the largest distance, r. It is the opposite. The earth moves fastest when it's at the closest approach. The area swept out by the orbit is the same for equal time periods. It takes less time to get from the autumnal equinox to the spring equinox, because perihelion happens in early January, and the earth moves faster in its orbit than in the other half of the year. "Too high" depends on the parameters you have not defined. What it was 150 mya doesn't have much relevance to what it is today; there were no humans and no civlizations back then. Do you have a citation for this claim? A link? Rome isn't the whole globe. It's possible for one area to be warmer or cooler than the average. You can show that this is the result of increased heat from the sun? Please provide the evidence.

Yes, they should. They have to come up with the same answer.

! Moderator Note Further posts, containing insults, have been removed. The next step will likely be suspension, so dial it back.

True...

It's so strange that "strangeness" is an actual name of a physics property

Pedantic point: some parties have open primaries. I have voted in both democrat and republican primaries despite only ever having registered as an independent. I have also been prevented from voting in certain primaries, as they were restricted to registered party members. Where I now live you don't register with a party and can vote in either primary, but not both. Not being affiliated with a party might reduce the amount of political literature you get in the mail (or possibly phone calls) by a small amount.

! Moderator Note I don't see any science here. No model, no evidence, no potentially falsifiable predictions. IOW, this does not meet the requirements for discussion.

I think you could put limits on whatever the possible discrepancy might be between + and - charges. At some point charge isn't going to build up anymore, owing to Coulomb repulsion, which is a lot stronger than gravitational attraction There is no dearth of electrons for everyday chemistry. The mass of the earth is 6 x 10^24 kg, and that's roughly 3 x 10^26 of each per kg of matter (assuming protons and neutrons are about equal in number). So around 10^51 of each. ——— edit to add: Assuming my math is right (feel free to check), if we equate the coulomb repulsion and gravitational attraction for an electron, for any r outside of the earth (assuming the charge is equally distributed), then it requires just 250 nanoCoulombs of charge — spread out over the surface — to make the forces equal. That puts a limit on how much excess electron charge could accumulate from the outside

! Moderator Note Some posts have been removed, as they seem to have tempted people to continue to follow the hijacked discussion.

The effect is not linear. The intensity drops as 1/r^2, so moving closer gives a larger change. You can look at a more extreme example to show this. if r is 1, the baseline is 1. r changing to 0.9 gives a value of 1.235. Changing to 1.1, it’s 0.826. The increase is 0.235, but the drop is 0.174

Moving at c is not a valid inertial reference frame. Light speed is indeed independent of the observer in an inertial frame