Icemelt

Oh sorry ! Not you then http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3503.html

Hi Norman Ah, I thought your name rang a bell. I remember you from absolute zero, if you know what mean Very interesting down there with becs Best wishes

Hey Neil You've certainly made some amazing progress over the past three months. I'm fairly blown away with your ideas, which have developed so much since our initial discussions. Well done mate, certainly a huge step from NetWare & GroupWise eh Great intuition and I love the diagrams which make it so much easier to follow your thoughts. Keep up the good work !

Anyone care to explain what's happening here ? http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i9/p1795_1 Bose-Einstein condensation has been achieved in a magnetically trapped sample of 85Rb atoms. Long-lived condensates of up to 104 atoms have been produced by using a magnetic-field-induced Feshbach resonance to reverse the sign of the scattering length. This system provides new opportunities for the study of condensate physics. The variation of the scattering length near the resonance has been used to magnetically tune the condensate self-interaction energy over a wide range, extending from strong repulsive to large attractive interactions. When the interactions were switched from repulsive to attractive, the condensate shrank to below our resolution limit, and after ∼5 ms emitted a burst of high-energy atoms

Good grief ! That was nearly ten years ago ? So what's happened since ? "With improved frequency stability of our set-up and lower coupling intensities, even lower light speeds would be possible, perhaps of the order of centimetres per second"

There's an interesting book by George Smoot called "Wrinkles in Time" covering this subject. I like your ideas, I'm still digesting your PDF

Come on ! We discover something we can't properly measure, so by definition it must be identical to all other similar objects we can't measure ! This is one of the least acceptable arguments I've ever heard How about: "We are unable to measure the structure of an electron because it is continually changing its state. Therefore in this respect each electron is unique since its state can never be synchronized with another" To me this seems a much more plausible conclusion !

No ! I can't agree with that If the light was bouncing off the particles due to the high density of the condensate, then it would be scattered as it leaves the medium. But it isn't ! It leaves as the same nice concentrated tight laser beam exactly as it entered.

OK but we can measure this distance since it the condensate is trapped in a tiny magnetic bottle in a lab, and it takes the light several seconds to traverse it !

Well yes indeed ! You have just repeated exactly what I've already stated But what is the explanation ? It's no good just saying "it does" ! What we need to theorisze on is why, and what are the implications ?

What is the explanation for the slowing down of light to a snail's pace when it enters a Bose–Einstein condensate, only to regain its normal speed as it leaves ? Experiments have shown that a laser pulse several miles long is reduced to just a few microns in length when it strikes a Bose–Einstein condensate. Then, slowly passing through the medium, as it reaches its exit point, the laser pulse regains its length and speed. Must we now assume that, when testing the limits of our physical environment, there are in reality no constants ?

My apologies for the omission see: http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/chapters/CH1_Introduction.pdf Chapter 1, Page 13 Better be quick, since I suspect this unacceptable data will be supressed shortly ! (Just a passing comment to antagonize the easily inflamed) (However somebody please prove me wrong by posting a live link to this chart in six months)

Here's an interesting little chart I stumbled on Looks like the guys camped out demonstrating at the airports should be hanging around the forests and coal / gas fired power stations instead !

You are correct in as much as the original radiosonde measurements were discredited, however you are incorrect in saying that the matter has been resolved. Later measurements submitted and approved by the IPCC failed to confirm that the troposphere is warming significantly faster than the surface, which is essential for the GHG cause to be substantiated. In fact the April 2007 IPCC report confirmed that many of the measurements showed that the surface was warming faster than the troposphere, and that in their opinion the combined results from all latitudes were inconclusive.

Something to consider for the open minded. Therefore one or two you probably need not bother reading this post ! Proxy temperature data relating to the ancient past will inevitably mask any minor short term variations, since it is unlikely that say data from 500,000 YBP or even 100,000 YBP would reveal small variations of 0.5C within a period of 50 years. Therefore, to say that temperatures today have risen faster than at anytime in the past 100,000 years, would seem to be an invalid observation. It would not be a legitimate comparison to directly compare short term temperature variations over the past 50 years to what’s happened even over the past few thousand years, since there seem to be no data that could accurately identify a 0.5C temperature change between say 125,000 and 125,050 YBP, and short term variations will inevitably have been masked. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that our data are sufficiently accurate to detect 0.5C temperature variations between 125,000 and 125,100 YBP, it would then be valid for us to use a 100 year moving average temperature rate change. i.e. The sum of the average temperatures over the previous 100 years divided by 100 would generate each point on our chart. But, I hear you cry, this would mask what has happened over the past 50 years, since it would be averaged together with the preceding 50 years and divided by 100, so this wouldn’t be fair. On the contrary, this would put the last 100 years or so of accurate direct thermometer readings on the same footing as the proxy data to which we are comparing. (The four inventors of thermometer at the beginning of the seventeenth century were Galileo, Sanitorio, Fludd and Drebbel. Although Magia Naturalis ( Natural Magic,1558,1589) describes a simple air-thermoscope, which traps air in a bulb so that, as the air expands or contracts in response to a temperature increase or decrease, it moves a liquid column in a long tube. But the thermoscope is not deemed to be a thermometer, since it didn’t actually have a scale.) Therefore the points we would need to plot on our chart to legitimately assess whether temperatures are rising faster than at any time during the past 125,000 years would be as detailed below from 0 through to 125,000 YBP. Total annual average temperatures 0 to 100 YBP / 100 Total annual average temperatures 1 to 101 YBP / 100 Total annual average temperatures 2 to 102 YBP / 100 Total annual average temperatures - - - - - - - - Total annual average temperatures - - - - - - - - Total annual average temperatures 124,998 to 125,098 YBP / 100 Total annual average temperatures 124,999 to 125,099 YBP / 100 Total annual average temperatures 125,000 to 125,100 YBP / 100 I haven’t actually plotted this chart, but I very much doubt that it would substantiate any such conclusions.