Cap'n Refsmmat

And of course before the first satellite was launched we had no idea what the density of the atmosphere at high altitudes was, what radiation pressure effects to expect, and so on. Of course the early predictions would be wrong. How about recent data? I am not talking about the data set. Maxlow makes claims about what scientists said, and I want to see evidence that scientists actually said those things. When did scientists say "let's set the expansion to 0, despite this evidence to the contrary?" I'm not asking about the data set. I'm asking about Maxlow's claims about what scientists wrote. Please prove to me, using experimental data or mathematics, that under core-like conditions material will expand when cooled. I will accept only experimental results or models using known physics. Generally, material contracts when cooled. The exception is water under certain conditions.

Indeed. Might I suggest Pandora, which lets you listen to your favorite kinds of music for free?

TVs produce yellow with red and green. Yellow is not an additive primary color -- the primary colors are different when you're adding colors rather than subtracting them, as paint does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color

The more correct explanation of my post is available here: http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=4 It should answer your questions better.

Effects such as atmospheric drag and radiation pressure can be modeled very accurately. I thought the Earth's rotation slows down because it's expanding, conserving angular momentum, and so the net angular momentum of the Earth doesn't change at all. Surely you could provide calculations and models to the contrary, and demonstrate that the current recession rate of the moon is to be expected under your model. That is not what I asked for. Maxlow claims researchers discovered the Earth is expanding and then decided it must not be. Surely if this is the case there are published papers of scientists going, "Hey, we found something weird," and other papers saying "It makes more sense if you set the expansion to zero." Where are these papers? Maxlow cannot claim researchers did this without citing the actual research. The quote he makes does not come from any research paper I can find, and without a citation he may well have just made it up. It's false. The majority of materials expand when heated and contract when cooled, rather than vice versa. The level of expansion and contraction can be calculated with a formula I learned in 10th grade -- perhaps you could use that to demonstrate that the expansion you talk about is feasible?

I was about to delete the original post as spam when I realized that your post would be a valuable resource for future members. Have you considered writing a rock horoscope book?

A simplistic explanation would be to say that photons traveling through a medium are absorbed and re-emitted with a small delay while traveling through the medium, so that the individual photons always travel at c but the overall net effect is that the light pulse is slower than c. (By the way, c usually represents the speed of light in vacuum, and is a physical constant, so it never changes. The phase velocity and group velocity of light can change, however.)

Photon's can't slow down, because they're massless. They can only be absorbed or emitted. Electrons have electric charge, so they experience a Coulomb force in the electric field and are accelerated or decelerated.

I have personally accelerated and decelerated electrons through an electric field and observed the effects of their varying velocities and wavelengths, so yes, that can be observed. They can transfer their momentum to other atoms in elastic collisions, although the large mass of atoms means the atom ends up with only a small fraction of the electron's energy and the electron bounces along on its merry way.

return_of_hate: Perhaps you could try contacting the authors, who appear to be at Stanford as well.

That would be a mistake. I did not speak of any additional mass. I predicated my argument on the assumption that the Earth's mass is constant. It seems you misunderstood. If the Earth expands but its mass remains constant, there will be no change in the forces on an orbiting satellite, and so the satellite will remain in the same orbit even as the Earth expands upwards to meet it. Eventually the Earth would be large enough that it will strike the orbiting satellites. Is there evidence that this effect occurs? The best measurements to date of the Moon's distance from the Earth's surface indicate that the Moon is receding from Earth at roughly four centimeters per year. This would imply that the Earth is shrinking, not expanding. I would like to see the data behind this. In which papers was this effect observed, and in which papers was the motion restricted to zero? I searched for the quote Mr. Maxlow uses, but it is not used anywhere in scientific literature or the Internet apart from in quotes of Mr. Maxlow's own writing.

I'd like to step in with two comments: As per speculations rule 1, some slightly more rigorous evidence is going to need to be presented for this thread to remain open. How do satellites remain in orbit at constant altitudes if the Earth is expanding? Sorry, I couldn't resist asking that. Here's why: Earth is spherical. Its gravitational influence on distant objects is not dependent on its size but on its mass, and so a satellite or other object at a significant distance from the Earth will orbit in exactly the same way even as Earth expands. We would hence notice the satellite seeming to get closer to the surface of Earth as Earth expands out to meet it. Given the existence of very precise measurements of Global Positioning System satellites and the Moon's orbit around the Earth, I'm surprised this effect would not be observed with an expanding Earth.

Why do you call them "misrepresentations"? Do you have other information to the contrary? Most of the news stories on the subject state that the Pakistani military did respond and dispatch aircraft, but the helicopters were able to leave before being intercepted. One must also remember it was the middle of the night near a Pakistani military base, so (a) the sound of helicopters may have gone unnoticed as they slept, and (b) the sound of helicopters was not unusual to hear. Bin Laden and his friends may have woken up to hear helicopters, thought "eh, just the Army out practicing again," and ignored the attackers until it was too late.

Fox News claims Osama had two weapons within reach and that the SEALs expected he'd have the building (or his own body) wired to explode: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/ Hence the urge to shoot him if he merely looked at them funny. I do question whether Fox really got access to sources "involved in the mission," however, given its secrecy. The aspect of international law that intrigues me more in this case is the unannounced intrusion into Pakistani territory, since it also seems it'll have serious repercussions for the US-Pakistan relationship.

Do you think rape is really a supply and demand issue? I don't think most theories of the psychology of rape include "hasn't gotten enough sex" as one of the primary motivating factors.

And the Judaism of today is vastly different from the Judaism of two or three thousand years ago.

I'm still curious why the US should find it necessary to put his death beyond question. So long as Al-Qaeda acknowledges his death (which is convincing evidence by itself) and bin Laden is not around to lead a new generation of terrorist recruits, does it matter if Joe Schmoe believes he was killed? Without knowledge of the raid, this is speculation. Presumably the unarmed bin Laden could have been reaching for weapons or otherwise posing a threat. We simply don't know.

Presumably the continued existence of bin Laden would make short work of this. There are also statements from Al-Qaeda members who confirm that bin Laden is dead: http://www.google.co...c913bc2a4047.01 The Taliban also claims it is working to confirm his death, so their angry statements in the next week or so should shed light on the issue. Different administration, different approach. Surprised? Question: Why should the United States care about the conspiracy theories that surround it, so long as a potential terrorist leader (or at least spiritual inspiration) has been eliminated? If the US has taken blood and tissue samples, as it claims, and has photographs and videos, as it claims, independent verification could easily still take place. Also worth noting that Pakistan now has Osama's alleged wife, who was apparently in the room when he was killed, in custody -- the failure of the American helicopter meant she couldn't be taken out with the American teams. Should Pakistan allow her to speak out, the American account can be independently verified.

You are mistaken. The Oxford English Dictionary: Habeas corpus hearing generally refer to a hearing undertaken to determine whether a prisoner's current imprisonment is lawful, not to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to arrest or charge a suspect. The etymology in the OED has nothing to do with murder cases and everything to do with having the body of the accused brought before the court. What you refer to is generally undertaken before a grand jury or in a preliminary hearing, and is not a habeas corpus order.

You're right. If you want authority, here's the Oxford English Dictionary on the subject: It's the difference between scientific and colloquial usage that makes it controversial.

Alexa does estimates based on the usage stats of a small sample of people using their toolbar, so it won't tell you directly the traffic to any particular site. It's also somewhat inaccurate for small sites, given the small sample size.

I don't know if such a thing exists, because it would require amalgamating traffic flows across multiple Internet service providers in different regions. Also, Internet flow is hard to count -- if you counted all traffic everywhere, you'd end up double-counting some traffic as it's routed through multiple sensors before getting to its destination, and so on. Some large sites and institutions make their graphs available: Wikipedia: http://wiki.wikked.net/wiki/Wikimedia_statistics/Daily WPI: http://mrtg.wpi.edu/

With my institutional access I have the full-text of this article. Perhaps we can settle some of the points in your previous posts using it: Not the case: It is not the hallucinated voices telling patients to commit suicide, so your logical effort to analyze their suicides is based on a false premise. Repetition is similarly not as common as you imply: This is why empirical data is important. Logical analysis will fail when your premises are false.

If you share a wireless router, it may have settings that can restrict traffic for certain applications, like file-sharing, or prioritize certain traffic. Check your router's manual.

I think the bit about women hating pornography is becoming less and less true as time goes on. There are now feminist groups which advocate for pornography on the basis that women should be able to do anything they want with their sexuality.