Slashdot Mirror

Deposits contaminate, the wave doesn't.

It's common for post-event debris/residue to contain radioactive material. That material emits radiation. It gets in the air and soil. It gets in the food. It gets in your body. The deposits are deadly.

But it's impossible for something to directly contain the EM wave itself. The water warms up (a lot?). That's it.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/me...

Putting emissive material into strawberries (soil) = very bad. But only-exposed strawberries (or water) will *contain no emissive deposits*.

Note: Other exposed elements can escalate into being emissive (eg an ore isn't "contaminated" by EM wave, but "activated")

Note: A shield exposed to cosmic radiation may not be emissive, but still compromised (eg weakened metal)

By the law of large numbers it's unlikely that the global temperature calculation is wrong.

Not remotely relevant. The accuracy of the global temperature calculation depends on the assumptions of the model. Garbage in, garbage out.

BEST which I mentioned earlier uses temperatures from over 39,000 stations amounting to over a billion observations over the years. You complain that one station is responsible for 10,000 square miles but to be taken seriously you need to show that those stations are not a reasonable representation of the surrounding areas. Researchers who have spent decades looking at the issues have decided they are.

A billion observations of a heterogeneous mix of 5000 trillion tonnes of air molecules.

So over 10 years, you're looking at 1 sample per 50 million tonnes of air molecules per year. 1e9 may sound like an impressive number to you, but there are plenty of other large numbers when dealing with system on a planetary scale.

Even if it turns out to be correct it doesn't contradict global warming.

It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas.

False predictions is theory falsification. Only junk science would ignore that.

In the extreme cold of Antarctica warming actually increases the chances of more snowfall because warmer air holds more moisture than colder air.

Bullshit rationalization to save the theory after the predictions failed. If you turn up the heat in your oven, a corner will become freezing cold, right?

When you're protecting the theory against the evidence, you're not practicing science.

A better way to put it is that when you are travelling nearly the speed of light, if you look behind you at the place you are heading away from time seems to stand still for it; the light from your old hometown is redshifted. But light that's coming in from in front of you (and thus, the perceived rate of time) is way higher. Time seems to be moving a hundred times faster than normal as you look at an oncoming blueshifted star. Then, the star passes you and all of a sudden it slows down... from your point of view.

So from the point of view of the fast moving observer, time is sped up in front of them, and nearly frozen behind. As they travel they pass galaxies that are growing old very fast, but leave behind them a frozen universe, that is changing imperceptibly slowly.

When they stop... they are not 'surprised' that the universe is old. They watched it grow old in front of them. Nor are they surprised that their home, now billions of light years away, has not changed much (it looks 'young') because behind them time seemed to stop. The perceived universe makes sense from the viewpoint of the traveler. Point being that there is no paradox. What happens to the fast moving universe would look really weird from inside (because of the starbow effect), but they would be used to it. You know... assuming they survived the X-Ray energy sleeting through them from impact with intergalactic matter.

"On May 22, 1886 .. Zenas F. Wilber, a former Washington patent examiner, swore in an affidavit that he'd been bribed by an attorney for Alexander Graham Bell to award Bell the patent for the telephone over a rival inventor, Elisha Gray, who'd filed a patent document on the same day as Bell in 1876." ref Bell's telephone sketch Elisha Gray's sketch of a telephone

You have to admit, both of thoes were pretty sketchy.

"On May 22, 1886 .. Zenas F. Wilber, a former Washington patent examiner, swore in an affidavit that he'd been bribed by an attorney for Alexander Graham Bell to award Bell the patent for the telephone over a rival inventor, Elisha Gray, who'd filed a patent document on the same day as Bell in 1876." ref

Bell's telephone sketch

Elisha Gray's sketch of a telephone

So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?

So could you explain why it is that you think the United States wants to invade sane, peace loving North Korea - a genuine light to the world guided by the enlightened Kims? Is it for the nonexistent oil? And how does it plan to invade? The US has about half of a division there - it is outnumbered about 50:1. And since they have been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1960s, do you think they can see into a future where they will be called part of the "Axis of Evil"? Or do you think it might be that they are pursuing their own goals independent of what the US does - perish the thought! The US has technically been at war with North Korea for nearly 60 years - why invade now?

I would also like to hear your ideas about why the breakdown of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and a world-wide nuclear arms race among third world nations is a good idea?

I'm not sure you are really qualified to identify what is sane, or even a good idea. You seem to want to empower third world thugs, dictators, and genocidal maniacs againt what you apparently claim as your own country. Why is that? Some sort of pathology?

I'm a little curious about the medical uses for the technology. Terahertz EM radiation should have similar wavelengths to Ultrasound, which only penetrates a few inches and lacks resolution. It's very useful, don't get me wrong, but no replacement for X-rays, CT, or MRI (click for images of kidney stones using each modality). Plus, ultrasound is becoming even less reliable due to the obesity epidemic, as it can't penetrate a foot of fat very well. Per Wikipedia THz can penetrate low-water tissue several millimeters, which is similar to visible light seen by the unaided eye.

Dermatologists and Dentists may find it useful, but I'm having trouble seeing the application into other medical fields. (Someone can chime in if there's something, I haven't been keeping up on it.) IMHO, it's premature to consider installing these in the clinic. Before that happens there needs to be some unique and significant benefit, which outweighs the risks, and is cost effective. Until then, keep it in the research labs where portability and miniaturization is less of an issue. We don't need technology in the clinic for technology's sake, it just drives up costs and increases wait times.

live in Toronto, a few blocks from the windmill on the lakeshore.

That is one windmill..imagine if you lived next to about 4,000 wind turbines like the San Gorgonio pass in California!

Same AC here. NASA is working on hydroponics. I can't find the link I remember, but there was something the size of a double-wide trailer created over 15 years ago that could support 80% of the nutrients necessary for a crew of three.

Here's detail on a recent ISS experiment for validating one type of growing technology (Lada-VPU-P3R). It looks like they've grown barley. What's next? Space beer?

Potatoes are not grown from seeds. They are grown from other potatoes

Then what's this guy doing?

In my experience with remote sensing better looking means nothing. What matters is the what kind of information we're able to extract from images. Like:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_wm_image.html/E750009-F._colour_Landsat_image_of_a_reservoir_in_Virginia-SPL.jpg?id=697500009

This a useful Landsat image (or composition, actually). It's also very ugly. But it's very useful.

We often had a guy to make a few beautiful images. Do the composition in the GIS software we used normally and our designed retouched it on Photoshop. People often went "wow" when looking at it but it was useless.