Prev: COSMIC BULLET FIRED BY EXPLODING STAR
Next: A new study has shoved aside the idea that supermassive black holesalways reside smack-dab at the centers of their host galaxies.
From: Ouroboros Rex on 25 May 2010 14:00
On 5/24/2010 7:10 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/

...denialist lie site.
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 17:52
there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago,
called the U.S. Climate Reference Something, that was just a dataset
of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been
"incorporated"
by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only
in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration.

when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that
it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and
there were plans for starting a new one, some time.

> Here's some data from Iowa State University
>    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html

thusNso:
"case" is every thing, in this context, and
I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation
of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-)

anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since
everyone else comprehends them to be two forms
of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass.

you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie,
by "transforming the equation into maether."

> Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter
> have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther.
> A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2.
> Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it.

thusNso:
there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken
into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land
due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though
there really is no discernible world-around "rise
of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as
with so much else).

thusNso:
there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've
been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting
of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts
continuous with distance, or just very subtle?
the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star,
doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still,
the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave
can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum
of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light"
a la Dubya.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
> Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there
> is stray light coming in from another source. That's how,
> We didn't really go to Moon!

thusNso:
you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems
to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property
of the atom, and *that* is the "particle"
into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon.
the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy,
as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye
(the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-)
nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and
probably not really in Einstein's; so, there.
> > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle.
> > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above,
> > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g..

--Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: COSMIC BULLET FIRED BY EXPLODING STAR
Next: A new study has shoved aside the idea that supermassive black holesalways reside smack-dab at the centers of their host galaxies.