As you kindly pointed out, the L4 and L5 points take a lot of energy to get to. In fact they are energy maxima, which means that they are not stable but unstable. However, once an object drifts away from L4 or L5 it becomes subject to a Coriolis force (if you care to believe in fictitious forces that result from adopting a rotating frame of reference) that sends it into a orbit around L4 or L5.
The article you referenced (with a flawed URL) did not mention extraneous decay. The authors merely stated that the ratios of isotopes varied more than expected depending on the original method of deposition. This partitioning of isotopes has absolutely nothing to do with decay and does not support your argument.
One Russian researcher has performed a simple experiment that demonstrates a statistical enigma within decay rates that mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon...
So what? Human activity mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon (though your original reference doesn't mention a lunar cycle, leading me to wonder how well you researched your argument). Perhaps the button on his pants was slightly radioactive and he checked on his experiment the same time every day. Also, cosmic ray rates are well-known to have diurnal and annual cycles and I haven't seen any evidence that the Russian biologist knew enough about this to adequately shield his experiments from them.
[t]here are anomalous dates in the series [of dates] which do not fit. This is common in the C-14 process. LIKE ANY GOOD ARCHAEOLOGIST, I WILL IGNORE THE DATES THAT DO NOT FIT."(14) (Emphasis added.) Once again, we are informed that dates that do not fit the accepted chronology are ignored. We are told that finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence and that good archaeologists will ignore anomalous dating evidence.
Finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence. This is not because radiocarbon dating is voodoo but because even a tiny amount of a "new" material (i.e. composed of carbon recently acquired form the atmosphere) can contaminate an older object to give it a radiocarbon date much younger than the actual age of the object. If I took a bore sample from a tree with 500 annual growth rings, carbon-dated the innermost layer, and came up with an age of 100 years, I wouldn't stupidly assume the tree was 100 years old, I would rightly assume that innermost layer had become contaminated with something newer, perhaps the PBJ sandwich I ate right before taking the bore sample. That 10 year data point is one I'd ignore. The converse is not true. It takes quite a large amount of older material to contaminate and therefore shift the age of a newer object. Ages that come out anomalously older than one expects are usually taken quite a bit more seriously.
Not everybody agrees that there is validity to these dates
How kind of you to provide quotes of people disagreeing 26 and 30 years ago, or a blind test done 18 years ago. The implication here is that the science couldn't have improved much since then. In fact you go on to say "Have things *really* changed all that much since then? If so, what?" Your mental laziness or coldly-calculated reluctance to study the current state of the science is not the foundation of a good argument. Better instrumentation allows for dating of smaller samples (if an object is partially contaminated, dating the whole thing would come up with an anomalous date while dating of a smaller uncontaminated portion will come up with a proper date). Research on speleothems has shown that varying solar activity has caused varying levels of C14 in the atmosphere which can now be corrected for. Different plants have been shown to absorb different carbon isotopes at slightly different rates. The types of materials that can be dated keeps expanding as protocol are developed for dating them. The assumption that there was only one carbon pool has given way to the realization that there local variations due to (geomagnetic) latitude, nearby carbonate rocks or volcanoes, etc., giving rise to geographical corrections to carbon dates. The science of radiocarbon dating is a fertile and constantly advancing field.
The parent to FalconZero's post was actually correct, despite FalconZero's smug attitude.
I'm assuming when you state that the 'sun is closer during the winter' that you're talking about Earth's orbital eccentricity (non-circular orbit) resulting in the entire planet being about 5 million kilometres closer to the sun during winter. Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference.
What FalconZero has forgotten is that the seasons are reversed. The Earth is closest during the Northern Hemisphere's winter (~January 3), which is the Southern Hemisphere's summer. Saying "Living in the northern or southern hemisphere would make no difference" is the same as saying there is no difference between winter and summer.
Earth axial tilt is ~23degrees which during summer means the North pole is tilted towards the sun, resulting in the northern hemisphere being (on average) closer to the sun.
Granted, but since this difference due to rotation value can only a fraction of the Earth's radius of 6400 km, it is dwarfed by the 5 million km difference due to eccentricity.
just thought I'd mention that the eccentricity results in Earth being about 2 degrees cooler during perihelion (closest point during orbit).
Not true. Northern hemisphere winters are milder because of the perihelion, so 2 degrees warmer is more likely than 2 degrees cooler.
What a load of crap. The study didn't use doppler shift to measure the distance, it used parallax. Beta expansion is a made-up term (in terms of astronomy), and the "counter planar" rotation is also imaginary. But the biggest clue was that Anonymous Coward was supplying the information.
You've forgotten tidal forces. Once there's any separation at all between the two objects they are experiencing two different gravitational forces on them. The difference between the two forces is the tidal force that will separate them. It quickly gets complicated as the lower one will want to move faster in its orbit and the higher one will want to orbit slower but they're tethered together...
Ah, you didn't explain yourself very well, leading me to assume that you were saying the whiteouts were the electrical arcs themselves. By reading the pdf I understand that these white areas are patches that have been etched by electrical arcs. But elsewhere in the very same document it says that "Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges." How very convenient. No matter what color the feature is you will claim it is due to electrical arcs. Which is it, black or white, or why do you think you can have it both ways?
And as for the statement "this is not an amateur attempt to explain comets," I'd like to point out that the document you linked to was written by an an electrical engineer and a mythologist. Since the subject of the paper is outside the area of expertise of either author, it is by definition an amateur attempt.
Either you believe everything that NASA interprets in its images as word of God, or there is the possibility that those white-outs are electrical arcs.
I took a look at the image you linked to. The "white-out" in the lower part of the image is casting a shadow on the surface beneath it (one part in fact looks like a cave) but also the white area itself is darkened in one area, suggesting that it is shadowed. The white area is thus not a source of light but is rather simply reflecting sun light. A more proper interpretation is that the white area in the lower part of the image is a small cliff composed of light colored material with darker material scattered on the surfaces above the cliff and below the cliff. The white area in the upper left part of the image is an isolated chunk of the lighter colored material. Next time avoid linking to images that don't support your arguments.
No experimental explosion at any scale has ever produced anything comparable to the well-defined 1500-kilometer "rays" of Tycho.
With a plastic tub, a marble, and a dollar's worth of white flour and cocoa powder one can quite easily create a replica of Tycho's rays. Even better examples are the man-made impact craters on the moon at the bottom of this page. One in particular, created by an Apollo 14 rocket stage, shows not only rays but also a central peak.
I also find this picture of the Sedan nuclear test quite telling. A nuclear explosion releases a large amount of energy in a small area much like an impact. Notice the arching columns of debris, each of which seems to have a unique shape and trajectory. It is quite easy to see how these would form rays as they collapse on the ground, and some seem to come from slightly off-center from the chaotic cloud of the explosion.
Eclipses show this quite easily? What the heck is that supposed to mean? And pork chop plots show how much energy it will take for a spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity, place it on a course to another object, and capture it into orbit upon arrival as a function of different launch and arrival dates. They are most definitely not, as you seem to imply, some sort of error estimate for orbital trajectories. It's sad that you've decided to try to cast aspersions on research done by the Southwest Research Institute, as it is highly regarded in the field, and you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator "Most designs call for single-walled carbon nanotubes. While multi-walled nanotubes may attain higher tensile strengths, they have disproportionately higher mass and are consequently poor choices for building the cable."
Actually a space elevator journey would take weeks. I'm sure elevator music under those conditions would violate the Geneva convention and the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Viruses survive more in warmer weather. Though we associate the common cold with colder temperatures, the cold actually inhibits them from growing.
Viruses grow only in their hosts, and if their hosts are human, which self-regulate their temperature, then they will only grow in a very narrow temperature range. In fact, fevers are regarded by some as a way of inhibiting viral growth by increasing the body temperature beyond the virus's optimal temperature.
How you're able to determine charge density on the basis of temperature is somewhat of a mystery. We can't even do that for our own Sun.
Using the spectrum of a star, not only can the densities of various ions and electrons be calculated, but also the relative abundances of the elements. It's unfortunate that you are unaware of an entire branch of science, but not unexpected. I'd also like to know why you think that a large current in space would z-pinch in only one central point along the length of the current rather than along the entire length. Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.
Anyway, if the ions and electrons were at a high enough density to carry a large current, they would also be at a high enough density to recombine, in which case they would be releasing a large quantity of visible and ultraviolet light, which they aren't What you neglected to explain is that a dark mode plasma at extremely low densities is not going to carry much of a current at all.
There's just one problem with your argument. The stuff in the Red Square image is relatively cool uncharged dust and gas (it's an infrared image after all), not a hot plasma, and therefore can't carry a current. Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue...
Anonymous Coward is quite wrong. All the news articles about the Red Square are referring to it as a new nebula. It hasn't been "imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade." It has only been imaged by two intruments over the last several years. It wasn't imageable until recent advance in adaptive optics, as AC should have known had AC read any of the articles. Mod parent uninformative.
Slashdot Mirror
As you kindly pointed out, the L4 and L5 points take a lot of energy to get to. In fact they are energy maxima, which means that they are not stable but unstable. However, once an object drifts away from L4 or L5 it becomes subject to a Coriolis force (if you care to believe in fictitious forces that result from adopting a rotating frame of reference) that sends it into a orbit around L4 or L5.
Three point one four one five nine two six five three five eight nine seven nine three two three eight six....
I'd rather have a little mercury in a landfill than a lot of mercury belching out of the stack of a coal-fired power plant.
Or you could set the haystack on fire and run a magnet through the ashes. I'm really hung up on the magnet for some reason.
What a load of crap. The study didn't use doppler shift to measure the distance, it used parallax. Beta expansion is a made-up term (in terms of astronomy), and the "counter planar" rotation is also imaginary. But the biggest clue was that Anonymous Coward was supplying the information.
Spoons, shovels? I always thought it would be easier to search for a needle in a haystack with a magnet, but what do I know?
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,010,000 for viagra mortgage. (0.28 seconds)
You've forgotten tidal forces. Once there's any separation at all between the two objects they are experiencing two different gravitational forces on them. The difference between the two forces is the tidal force that will separate them. It quickly gets complicated as the lower one will want to move faster in its orbit and the higher one will want to orbit slower but they're tethered together...
or launch from international waters.
These people are visionaries, except when it comes to anticipating large server loads.
And as for the statement "this is not an amateur attempt to explain comets," I'd like to point out that the document you linked to was written by an an electrical engineer and a mythologist. Since the subject of the paper is outside the area of expertise of either author, it is by definition an amateur attempt.
I also find this picture of the Sedan nuclear test quite telling. A nuclear explosion releases a large amount of energy in a small area much like an impact. Notice the arching columns of debris, each of which seems to have a unique shape and trajectory. It is quite easy to see how these would form rays as they collapse on the ground, and some seem to come from slightly off-center from the chaotic cloud of the explosion.
Eclipses show this quite easily? What the heck is that supposed to mean? And pork chop plots show how much energy it will take for a spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity, place it on a course to another object, and capture it into orbit upon arrival as a function of different launch and arrival dates. They are most definitely not, as you seem to imply, some sort of error estimate for orbital trajectories. It's sad that you've decided to try to cast aspersions on research done by the Southwest Research Institute, as it is highly regarded in the field, and you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator "Most designs call for single-walled carbon nanotubes. While multi-walled nanotubes may attain higher tensile strengths, they have disproportionately higher mass and are consequently poor choices for building the cable."
Actually a space elevator journey would take weeks. I'm sure elevator music under those conditions would violate the Geneva convention and the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The current machine works at 100-300 kHz, while Rife's "worked" at 10-100 MHz.
Viruses grow only in their hosts, and if their hosts are human, which self-regulate their temperature, then they will only grow in a very narrow temperature range. In fact, fevers are regarded by some as a way of inhibiting viral growth by increasing the body temperature beyond the virus's optimal temperature.
The forger him/herself violated the copyright of whomever designed the document in the first place.
Anyway, if the ions and electrons were at a high enough density to carry a large current, they would also be at a high enough density to recombine, in which case they would be releasing a large quantity of visible and ultraviolet light, which they aren't What you neglected to explain is that a dark mode plasma at extremely low densities is not going to carry much of a current at all.
There's just one problem with your argument. The stuff in the Red Square image is relatively cool uncharged dust and gas (it's an infrared image after all), not a hot plasma, and therefore can't carry a current. Typical Birkeland Current/Electric Universe fanboy spouting off without having a clue...
Anonymous Coward is quite wrong. All the news articles about the Red Square are referring to it as a new nebula. It hasn't been "imaged thousands of times by hundreds of instruments over the past decade." It has only been imaged by two intruments over the last several years. It wasn't imageable until recent advance in adaptive optics, as AC should have known had AC read any of the articles. Mod parent uninformative.