origin Profile

Nah. (Feb 1, 2011 | post #88)

Really? It certainly looks like the Physics Forum to meSo you can readScore points by being negative? What is your problem? Funfacts made some claims that I have never heard of, and I asked for evidence to back up those claims. Now maybe you take everything told to you on face value but I am not so foolishYou have added nothing but drivel to this conversation - it is clearly not worth my time to respond to you anymore. If funfacts would like to back up his claim with evidence I would be interested. (Feb 1, 2011 | post #86)

This is a physics forum and as such I assumed that the rules of science applied. I am not looking for the answer because, I am not the one that made the claim! It is the responsiblity of the individual making the claim to back it up. I am not asking you anything, I am asking the one who made a claim to simply back up the claim with some evidence. Does this seem unreasonable? (Feb 1, 2011 | post #84)

It is not logic it is silliness. Why do you want to be obtuse and try to confuse a simple concept? That aspect is trivial anyway and I really don't feel like playing semantics. The real meat of my question which continues to go unaswered is: Where is the evidence that the Mayans new of precession and what is this alleged glactic aligment? (Jan 31, 2011 | post #82)

Look at this example. I am sure you are familiar with the change in pitch of a train whistle as it passes you. This is of course actually a change in the frequency of the sound waves. We will use a train as a sound gun. Assume there is a train and a huge wall mounted on a rail car 500 m in front of the train. The train blasts it's whistle and if the wall is stationary the following will occur: The pitch of the whistle will be the same for the train, the wall and the echo will return at the same pitch. And finally the speed of the sound wave will be constant. Now the train blasts it's whistle, but this time the wall is moving towards the train. The following will be heard. The train will intially hear the whistle at the same pitch as before. An observer on the moving wall will hear a higher pitch (frequency) than the train. What is more the echo will return to the train with the higher pitch (frequency). Finally the speed of the sound wave does not change because it's speed is only a function of the density of the air. I must caution about using sound waves to explain light waves as there are major differences as shown with special relativity but it can be instructive in limited cases. (Jan 31, 2011 | post #15)

I believe that you correct that to the driver the incoming frequency and the reflected frequency will be the same. But why do you think that this means the speed of the wave changes? The incident frequency will be higher as measured by the drive than emitted by the radar gun. The reflected frequency will be identical to the incident frequency. The detector at the radar gun will measure the higher frequency and that will then be translated into a velocity of the driver. The speed of the EM radiation will remain constant. (Jan 31, 2011 | post #14)

Ha ha (Jan 31, 2011 | post #80)

Nascar has a start / finish - orbits and celestial movements do not. Any start or end is arbitrary. Do you have any evidence that the mayans gave precession a beginning or end? What galactic alignment are you talking about? (Jan 31, 2011 | post #78)

Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.

So you are saying that the concept that space is a 4 dimensional space time continum is an abstract concept? How so? There are 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. All of these dimensions can be measured. How the dimension interact is predicted by Special Relativity and General Relativity. The predictions are shown to be correct by actual measurements. Where are the abstractions? Saying this is a half truth simply is innacurate. Just because this is something that is difficult for you to understand does not make it wrong. This is simple stuff compared to QM. You must really think that is a lie. Even though the computer you are typing on proves that it is an accurate theory... (Jan 31, 2011 | post #4)

Physics: By Beauty it is beautiful.

I don't exactly understand your post. You start out by saying there is prejudce to accept relativity. Uh, I guess so! I certainly would expect everyone who understands relativity to accept it. It explains so many things in the universe which were mysteries before. It explains why the velocity of light is unaffected by the relative motion of the source or the observer. It explains the orbit of mercury. It explains why the energy to accelerate subatomic particles is not linear as the velocity is raised. Experiments have consistently shown that the theory is correct. Observations have shown that the predictions of special and general relativity are correct. The relativity affect of velocity and gravity on time must be taken into account in the calculation of our GPS systems for them to work properly. Relativity is not a mathematical game it is an extremely robust theory that has been shown to be correct no matter how we test it. (Jan 30, 2011 | post #2)

Question on Gravitational Force

You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Speed_o f_gravity This site looks like it represents the current thinking. (Jan 28, 2011 | post #8)

The problem appears to be that you do not understand how a speed gun works. The gun emits a constant frequency of light waves. The light waves reflect off a moving object and return to the gun. If the object is moving away then the frequency will decrease if the object is moving towards the gun the frequency will increase. Why you think this means that the speed of light is not constant is beyond me. Every single legit experiment ever carried out has shown that the speed of light is a constant. Saying the speed of light isn't constant does not make it true. Where is your evidence - it certainly is not your speed gun example! I took a quick look at your website and the problem you are having understanding this is indeed frequency. The energy of a photon is E = h*f = h*c/[wave length] so c = f*[wave length]. From this you seem to be saying that if you are traveling towards a light source because the frequency changes and the energy of the photon does not change then the speed of the light must change. But that is wrong! The energy does change! If you are traveling at 99.9999% the speed of light towards a source of visible light, you will measure the speed of light from the source at c. However the frequency will be very short which means that the light will have more energy. In fact that light could have the energy of gamma rays if you are going fast enough. This frequency change is one of the methods that is used to determine the motion of galaxies and stars in the universe. You are simply mistaken on your notion of light speed. The several paragraphs I read on your website were just different instances of you not understanding the relationship between frequency, speed and energy of light. (Jan 28, 2011 | post #12)

Physics Hoaxster Spews Hateful Rhetoric Against Climate S...

That is a gross misrepresentation of the petition. There are 31,000 signatures of people from all walks of life NOT CLIMATOLOGISTS. A guy with a PhD from a field other than climatology is just an appeal to authority. According to the web site I am a scientist (I have a BS)! Wow, I thought I was just an engineer! You can sign the petition and call your self a PhD if you want... I could get 31000 people to sign a petition saying that crop circles are made by aliens! The evidence has lead a consensus of Climatologist to say that global warming exisists and that it is caused by man. You can dissagree with this but do not make up stuff for your argument! There is no conspiracy or underlying motive by the climatologists - they are just analyzing the data that they have. No reasonable scientist would dare say the evidence is refutable. The evidence is compelling and definatly points to the warming of the planet due to human intervention. As far as the rest of your rant it is mostly wrong and misguided. Here is a site from NOAA that adresses some of your concerns, but I supppose you think NOAA is a left wing socialist orginazation bent on the destruction of the american way. ;) http://www.ncdc.no aa.gov/faqs/index. html (Jan 28, 2011 | post #11)

Physics Hoaxster Spews Hateful Rhetoric Against Climate S...

Just for balance here is the actual article about global warming that Dr. Mark Boslough (he does have a Ph.D. in physics) wrote. http://www.santafe newmexican.com/Opi nion/Looking-in--M ark-Boslough-Clima te-change-deniers- ignore-science# (Jan 27, 2011 | post #8)