Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 12:37
there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
on 21stcenturysciencetech.com). the melting
of land-ice is quite small, because a)
most glaciers are *not* receding, and b)
almost all of it is in Antarctica, which is not melting
(true, icebergs calve, there .-)

thus:
I just want to know,
why he attributes Leibniz's *vis viva* to Coriolis. now,
the Coriolis effect is interesting, because
it can also be a force, "depending."

thus:
his problem is not "research on the net;"
it appears that English is not his primary language,
so that we really can't say, what he is trying
to say. if you have ever tried to "deal"
with AP, you know of what I type.

the only possible cure -- other than
cruising on fora in his mother tongue, but
of which (like AP) he may not be literate --
is to *try* to read Shakespeare (and
this applies to everyone, who thinks he is or
ought to be literate in the "King's English,"
as proven in the KJV .-)

thus:
I missed that on the initial scan; it is to laugh!... but
I was interested to read of Soros' funding --
what a creep "philanthropist," he is (you can
check this on the LaRouchiac site .-)

so, basically, all Hindu gods should be toasted, if
y'know what I mean (althoug, of course,
each is very useful in its own domain, I'm sure,
other than "what is the speed of the propogation
of light?")

Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: erschroedinger on 27 Apr 2010 13:34
On Apr 27, 12:37 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
> on 21stcenturysciencetech.com).

Congratulations. You've fallen for a Lyndon LaRouche web site. Now
don't you feel silly?


From: Benj on 27 Apr 2010 15:48
On Apr 27, 1:34 pm, "erschroedin...(a)gmail.com"
<erschroedin...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:37 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
> > on 21stcenturysciencetech.com).
>
> Congratulations.  You've fallen for a Lyndon LaRouche web site.  Now
> don't you feel silly?

Lets see if I got you right: A website says there is no overall sea
level rise. It is a Lyndon LaRouche website. Lyndon LaRouche has a
(rightwing) agenda. Therefore it follows that there must actually BE a
HUGE sea rise from all the melting ice due to the global warming that
all scientists are in complete agreement exists created by not enough
taxes on CO2.

Great scholarship, sonny.

You COULD actually go and look up the actual satellite data on sea
levels. And you might discover that, yes there actually IS a sea level
rise. Only it's pretty much been the same as it's been since before
the industrial revolution: Namely 2 millimeters per year. Waddya
know?
From: Androcles on 27 Apr 2010 16:24

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:b7d8ebe3-8611-485a-af56-aa6e2b077cb0(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 1:34 pm, "erschroedin...(a)gmail.com"
<erschroedin...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:37 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
> > on 21stcenturysciencetech.com).
>
> Congratulations. You've fallen for a Lyndon LaRouche web site. Now
> don't you feel silly?

Lets see if I got you right: A website says there is no overall sea
level rise. It is a Lyndon LaRouche website. Lyndon LaRouche has a
(rightwing) agenda. Therefore it follows that there must actually BE a
HUGE sea rise from all the melting ice due to the global warming that
all scientists are in complete agreement exists created by not enough
taxes on CO2.

Great scholarship, sonny.

You COULD actually go and look up the actual satellite data on sea
levels. And you might discover that, yes there actually IS a sea level
rise. Only it's pretty much been the same as it's been since before
the industrial revolution: Namely 2 millimeters per year. Waddya
know?
===============================================
148940000 km^2 Earth land area
510072000 km^2 Earth sea area
14000000 km^2 Antarctica area
1.6 km Ice height
22400000 km^3 Antarctica Ice volume
0.043915369 km vol/area= height
43.91536881 meters * 1000
0.002 metres 2 mm/year
21957.68441 years


Wackypedia data only.
If all the ice in Antarctica melted, sea level would rise 40 metres
in 22,000 years. Don't hold your breath, but pay that carbon tax.


From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 19:26
OMG, some dood hates Lyn!... well,
find the article about actual sea-level data
from tidal stations, yourself, mister Nice-guy.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/Tanawa/tanawa.html
What Is a Torquetum?
The torquetum, an analogue computer, can tell us, without long and
tedious calculation, at any time of the night when planets or the Moon
are visible, what their angular distance is from the Sun, or from the
first point of Aries, and/or from some bright star in their vicinity.
It can also tell us how much they are above or below the ecliptic.

This would give us a fairly quick way to construct an almanac, with
enough data to predict at least lunar eclipses, as well as
occultations of bright stars or planets by the Moon—the which dramatic
events ought to confirm the longitude readings obtained by using the
torquetum to measure lunar distance.
—Rick Sanders

>       148940000  km^2 Earth land area
>       510072000  km^2 Earth sea area
>       14000000  km^2 Antarctica area
>       1.6  km Ice height
>       22400000  km^3 Antarctica Ice volume
>       0.043915369  km vol/area= height
>       43.91536881  meters  * 1000
>       0.002  metres 2 mm/year
>       21957.68441  years

thus:
I dug into your wikilink, Sue;
the upshot is that there is only practiceably "patial vacuum,"
with all kinds of waffling about "free space;"
particularly laudable is:
Scientists working in optical communications tend to use free space to
refer to a medium with an unobstructed line of sight (often air,
sometimes space). See Free-space optical communication and the What is
Free Space Optical Communications?.

The United States Patent Office defines free space in a number of
ways. For radio and radar applications the definition is "space where
the movement of energy in any direction is substantially unimpeded,
such as the atmosphere, the ocean, or the earth" (Glossary in US
Patent Class 342, Class Notes).[40]

Another US Patent Office interpretation is Subclass 310: Communication
over free space, where the definition is "a medium which is not a wire
or a waveguide".[41]

thus:
now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare
wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder
about his death at fifty-three, after dining
with a manslaughterer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if
you really want to get into WS's politics,
find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine,
"Why the British hate Shakespeare" -- if you can do so,
at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners.

thus:
the whole *problem* is the diagramming,
which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned
into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched
on paper. you simply do not need the pants,
the lightcones they're made with, and
the paradoxes of "looping in time" because
of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate
with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died.

as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes,
you won't be able to do *any* physics,
that isn't "junkyard physics."

thus:
you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster"
than "photons," which is three things that have
never been seen. Young proved that all properties
of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo-
electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls
o'light for British academe. well, even if
any large thing could be accelerated to so close
to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known
as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space"
-- which is no-where "a" vacuum --
it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting,
per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all,
this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics,"
not "vacuum energy dynamics").

thus:
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars