Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Science Controversy over Speed of Gravity

Debra Lee Logan · Guest

Would someone please explain the following graph to me?

I think I know what "dankness" is but how is this measured and what is
the graph representing?
--

ARK Meteorological Survey wrote:
[quote]Recent unpleasant humidity in ARK
Dankness index
14 ++--+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+----------+--++
| + + + + + + + |
| |
12 ++ * ++
| * |
10 ++ * ++
| * * |
| * * |
8 ++* * ++
| * * |
6 ++* * * ++
| * * * |
| * * * * |
4 ++* * * * ++
| * * * * * * * |
2 ++* * * * * * * * * * * ++
| * * * * * * * * * * * |
| * * * * * * + + + * * * * + * * * * |
0 ++*-*-*-*-*--*-+---------+----------+-------*-*-*-*-----+----*-*-*-*--++
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Relative date (0=today)[/quote]

Kevin S. Wilson · Guest

On 28 Nov 2006 06:10:51 -0800, "Debra Lee Logan"
<debraleelogan@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Would someone please explain the following graph to me?

I think I know what "dankness" is but how is this measured and what is
the graph representing?
[/quote]
Debra,
You>ve got mail.

Debra Lee Logan · Guest

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
[quote]On 28 Nov 2006 06:10:51 -0800, "Debra Lee Logan"
debraleelogan@hotmail.com> wrote:

Would someone please explain the following graph to me?

I think I know what "dankness" is but how is this measured and what is
the graph representing?

Debra,
You>ve got mail.
[/quote]
Please resend.

Hotmail barfed momentarily.

BradGuth · Guest

On 15 Apr, 12:47, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]This time I>d been getting all of those nifty "Your post was successful"
worth of Usenet conformation feedbacks, and yet not a one of my
contributions shows up in the topic index. Apparently our silly Jewish
run or rather stealth moderated Usenet is once again having been
selectively terminated as of 6:57 am. Whereas a few other groups were
still running full speed ahead as of 7:44 am, alt.politics.bush was
still flying as of 8:41 am, and apparently the God of Usenet likes
"alt.atheism" because, he/she had kept that group afloat until 8:28 am,
along with "alt.religion.islam" as being good for 8:10 am, with
"alt.bible" still kicking butt at 9:20 am, and "soc.culture.usa" still
breathing as of 8:29 am.

BTW; do take notice as to all of those pesky Mailgate.org "Mailgate:
Message not available" topics, and of taking a bit further notice as to
what those sorts of topics were about. Most of my Mailgate topic index
is primarily those listed as "Mailgate: Message not available", but you
can often still open those topics to see what>s worth hiding from us
clients and otherwise totally excluded away from the public>s outside
view.

Moon landing hoax... I found the fatal flaw.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/726e40...
Dear MI/NSA spook Ed,
Yes we most certainly can place Venus within that very crystal clear and
dark sky at the time of those NASA/Apollo landings, just as well as any
basic 2D solar system simulator (including those of NASA) can more than
substantiate upon that exact location of Venus, though it gets
especially impressive if you>re utilizing a fully interactive 3D
simulator that>ll put the viewer and whatever FOV(frame of view) as
actually situated upon the moon. Our NASA and many others have those 3D
simulators that>ll put that FOV at each and every landing site, as well
as their having the supercomputer for accomplishing a fully interactive
animation, exactly as though you>re the actual orbiting or EVA astronaut
holding that camera along with it>s unfiltered optics and containing
such film that was more spectrum sensitive than any human eye.

IF you can in fact manage to record those deep blue oceans of mother
Earth along with a little something of the moon, or of their equipment
and/or especially of any EVA astronaut within a given FOV (as
NASA/Apollo supposedly accomplished just exactly that from orbit and
otherwise multiple times from the deck), then you sure as freaking hell
would have recorded that nearby crescent of Venus, as especially more
vibrant looking than the naked eye because of their using such
unfiltered optics and of that Kodak film that was actually rather
near-UV(violet) and even a little UV-a sensitive to a much greater
extent than the human eye. It>s that simple.

Warhol, Plisek and so many others (including myself) have been right all
along.

However, finding just those right words and of all the best available
science, or even of those regular laws of physics that>ll tell an
entirely different story is simply not good enough for putting all of
these NASA/Apollo rusemasters down for good, as they and of their borg
like collective of brown-nosed clowns merely avoid, exclude and/or
whenever possible banish whatever on the fly, not to mention having been
sharing their expertise at delivering as much spermware/fuckware into
your PC as they can muster.

Besides the rather unusual lack of Venus and a few other DR(dynamic
range) worthy items that should have been recorded, there>s actually any
number of those Kodak moments telling us the truth, as well as per those
pesky laws of physics having been otherwise telling us the whole truth
and nothing but the truth about our naked and somewhat salty old moon
that>s more than a little TBI lethal to our frail DNA.

The color spectrum of such a raw solar illumination is simply NOT going
to be that of such a terrestrial looking spectrum worth of color
saturation, such as provided by their xenon arc lamp spectrum that>s
very terrestrial looking and therefore without hardly any UV to speak
of.

Their hocus-pocus magic worth of surface tension, of that far better
than nicely vacuum dried, sub-frozen and otherwise double IR/FIR roasted
to death worth of such absolutely bone dry and yet rather nicely
clumping with such an absolutely terrific amount of surface tension
worthy moon dirt was apparently far more extra special (meaning
terrestrial like) than anyone had thought possible. Their moon dirt was
also without a breath of static and otherwise so nicely reflecting, in
that it had a very guano island look worth of albedo of far better than
0.5 for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, in many
locations reaching an impressive albedo of 0.75.

Perhaps that also explains as to why their hocus-pocus controlled (w/o
benefit of momentum reaction wheels) worth of down-range and soft
landing thrust having displaced next to nothing, and perhaps also why
Venus was simply nowhere in sight, even though it was in fact
unavoidably so nearby and very much there to behold, as would have been
rather easily recorded within the available DR(dynamic range) and
FOV(field of view) of most any number of such unfiltered Kodak moments.

That physically dark moon environment is simply TBI(total body
irradiation) hotter and thereby more potentially lethal than any Van
Allen badlands you can point at. There>s simply no possible way in hell
such Kodak film survived for such an extended amount of time, especially
without such poorly shielded film having taken significant gamma and
Xray hits.

Those MythBusters or any 5th grader with a PC or MAC at their disposal
need only to run the likes of CELESTIA, or something less or better than
3D simulation in order to more than prove this point, that we>ve been
entirely snookered by the right stuff of those that>ll knowingly lie and
otherwise perpetrate whatever on behalf of their government, as well as
on behalf of whatever faith-based cult or chapter of Skull and Bones
they belong to.
-BradGuth
[/quote]
Part-2

So, apparently the telling of those mainstream status quo lies upon
lies, or as having been excluding evidence that doesn>t fit your cozy
mindset, or such as otherwise allowing all that>s derived from those
of your kind and GW Bush, is supposedly not being a "racist, repulsive
dolt, a scientific ignoramus, and a delusional wackjob"?

"Usenet Servers going Anti-Truth/Faith-Based"
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/88300a03bcac9cdd/9051a3416220a639?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=6#9051a3416220a639
Bill Snyder:
"It just marks them as capable of reading your posts."

I can>t be at all sure: "It just marks them"?
Was that one an encrypted message from your very own naysay black
hole?

I>m afraid that Usenet is not entirely robo clean, whereas instead
it>s capably moderated and/or stealth managed from those having the
proper master codes and/or having those nifty back-door and/or special-
interest tricks at their disposal. Unlike specifically moderated
groups, those supposedly unmoderated groups as served by way of
computers as such, are not capable of AI running amuck, whereas it
takes the expertise of individuals in charge of allowing, diverting
and/or skewing each and every byte of whatever gets posted.

Phony topic index stacking and/or simply not giving proper index
updates to those you folks hate the most is clearly what being e-KKK,
Third Reich or just what being plain nasty old-fart extra special
bigoted is all about, isn>t it.

Some Usenet servers are of course much worse off than others, few if
any are stand alone 'free-for-all' robo-usenet servers without human
factors. In other words, Usenet is exactly whatever those in charge
intend and/or allow it to be, including those client specific
capabilities that makes it possible for certain individuals or entire
groups to being excluded and/or made to think quite differently than
the honest facts represent, and that>s exactly what most any
government and of their faith-based or big-business (including their
own cloak and dagger MI/NSA or MIB) puppeteers insist upon maintaining
as such. Only a damn fool (such as anyone supporting GW Bush or just
being naysay for the Old Testament gipper) thinks otherwise.
-
Brad Guth

dan.echegoyen@gmail.com · Guest

On Sep 14, 7:50 pm, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
[quote]Jim S wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:35:23 -0700, sdr wrote:

I was going with that until you said
"BECAUSE OF Newton>s Laws of Motion"
'because of'? Jim S

Yes. "BECAUSE OF"

START QUOTE FROM:http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Newton>s Three Laws of Motion

Let us begin our explanation of how Newton changed our
understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three
Laws of Motion.

Newton>s First Law of Motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends
to remain in that state of motion unless an
external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo>s concept of
inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of
Inertia".

Newton>s Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object>s mass
m, its acceleration a, and the applied force
F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are
vectors (as indicated by their symbols being
displayed in slant bold font); in this law
the direction of the force vector is the same
as the direction of the acceleration vector.

This is the most powerful of Newton>s three Laws,
because it allows quantitative calculations of
dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are
applied. Notice the fundamental difference between
Newton>s 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle:
according to Newton, a force causes only a change in
velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the
velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under
Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is
the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is
only a velocity if there is a force, but according to
Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains
that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an
acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As
we have noted earlier in conjunction with the
discussion of Galileo, Aristotle>s view seems to be
more in accord with common sense, but that is because
of a failure to appreciate the role played by
frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces
acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of
Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found
to be in accord with the observations.

Newton>s Third Law of Motion:

III. For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off
a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the
direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the
opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water,
if we aren>t careful!).

END QUOTE

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton>s laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

The UNIVERSE' breeding area (the "more tenuous spot"
above) would have been perfectly surrounded by "denser
material" which would have crashed towards its center:

Note that, in response to this motion {Law 3} a
growing greater volume of that "denser area" would
have "become less dense" ... as its "material" moved
towards "the more tenuous spot," [the "area" from
which "the material" was moving would have spread
outwards BECAUSE OF Newton>s Laws of Motion].

Additionally, the "thermodynamic flow" would have
crashed towards the "center" of the less dense spot.
And, necessarily, all the material flowing there from
the surrounding areas would have had only itself to
crash against (or, "to wind itself up unto itself"
might be a more appropriate way of putting it): An
effect which continues even unto this very day "there"
--or "here," since "there" is the entirety of the/our
visible universe (in other words, the universe of
"matter" which has coalesce into "us").

S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

RE:

On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden
BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian>s piano sonata

http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS

Ha! Those are by Mozart.
Last time "I" wrote a piano
sonata it caused such hysterics
(of laughter) that I
was briefly held on a charge
of attempted homicide
(of my listeners).

Sorry... interpretation...

I wish we could discuss the relation of
thermodynamics and gravity.

VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

It>s all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton>s laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
"singularities" are physically impossible in our
reality--all you need do is look around you).

Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
compare "the size" of the universe... it will
"always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.

Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
shrinking may actually be).

Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
drop Newton>s apple it will simply "float" in place.
You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
away from Newton>s apple with a matching speed:

Think of the earth>s ground (in the latter case, or #2
above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
earth>s matter keeps it from going into any sort of
"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
to an actual black hole star>s "ground." Therefore the
falling Newton>s apple can only accelerate until it
hits the earth>s surface. Why should it/does it
accelerate at all?

The reason for this acceleration is that the
"shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]

The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
"faster" it grows smaller... forever.

This is the reason why for a dozen or more
years before astronomers finally discovered
that the universe>s "expansion" was
accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.

If our "Newton>s apple" were falling into an actual
black hole star, its acceleration would almost
certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
only just "nearly."

This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
dropped Newton>s apple it would NOT just float "in
place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
earth>s surface, very pronounced on a black hole
star>s. Why?

Because this effect/interaction is one which is
strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:

In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
Newton>s apple appears to be pulling at the elevator>s
floor and vice versa.

And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
the center of the

...

read more »
[/quote]
BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and
energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are
experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are
interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are
those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave
forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical
expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular
wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second
wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom
following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two
dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling
faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three
dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two
dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this
local density fluctuation, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple
wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed
universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is
indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear
acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole
travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in
a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly
to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is
downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension
field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds
its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as
the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated
in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that
travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge,
being a gravitational attractor, gathers more of the energy of the
field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to
collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the
original direction of the first torus. This is a black hole to the
first torus, and a white hole to the second torus.
While gravity tends to draw things together locally on the torus, even
to the point of collapse, other areas on the torus are expanding and
contracting globally without regard to any local phenomenon. The
inertia of the torus is its dark energy. A three dimensional universe
is more complicated in one respect, but no different in another.

From Structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

Steve Firth · Guest

Rodney Blackall <rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]Sorry to cross post folks but today I dropped into the Milton Keynes branch
of Borders
[/quote]
You went to Milton Keynes? And you wish to admit this in a public forum,
have you no shame?

Uncle Al · Guest

sdr@sdrodrian.com wrote:
[quote]
rolfguthm...@uol.com.br (Rolf Guthmann) wrote:
New law of gravitation?
Power LawGravity?
What is gravity?
What is its cause or source?
Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle,
but no one has yet been fully successful.

Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation
of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
the annals of conventional science because
[snip 4400 lines of crap][/quote]

Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)

Was that so hard? Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Androcles · Guest

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4797A4EE.F5CD330D@hate.spam.net...
| sdr@sdrodrian.com wrote:
| >
| > rolfguthm...@uol.com.br (Rolf Guthmann) wrote:
| > > New law of gravitation?
| > > Power LawGravity?
| > > What is gravity?
| > > What is its cause or source?
| > > Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle,
| > > but no one has yet been fully successful.
| >
| > Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation
| > of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
| > the annals of conventional science because
| [snip 4400 lines of crap]

crap snipped.
PISSING AND MOANING IDIOT ALERT!!
PISSING AND MOANING IDIOT ALERT!!

http://tinyurl.com/2g2ukd
20 Aug 2003, 21:16

| Hey stupid:

| 1) Newton summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = V1 + V2
| 2) Special Relativity summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = (V1 + V2)/[1
+(V1)(V2)/c^2]

| There>s the math. Now you can piss and moan about an inertial observer.

| We>ll proactively play it your way, asshole. -- Schwartzshit.

HEY FUCKHEAD!
We>ll proactively play it your way, CUNT.

| [@] Among the reasons it is unphysical is the fact that the
| composition of two velocities to the right can result in a
| velocity to the left. Another reason is that "time" acts
| just like "space". Neither of these are true in the world
| we inhabit.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

No aether.
No fucking aether.
NO FUCKIN' AETHER.
NO FUCKING AETHER, DUMBFUCK!
NO GODDAMN FUCKING AETHER, YOU USELESS PILE OF SHIT!
TAKE YOUR POXY AETHER AND SHOVE IT UP YER ARSE,
YOU MORON!!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
The pencil is broken. Don>t like empirical observations, Schwartzshit?
Fuckhead.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

"BTW, you f ck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Schwartzshit, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling alley."

http://tinyurl.com/3pwu

Uncle Al · Guest

Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Nothing.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Androcles · Guest

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4797B261.65633313@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Nothing.

That>s right, it was all the nothing crap you wrote.

hanson · Guest

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4797B261.65633313@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
[quote]
Nothing.[/quote]
--
Uncle Al
[quote]

[hanson][/quote]
--------- 398 hits for
--[ author:UncleAl0@hate.spam.net [snip crap] nothing]--
[quote]
..... Impressive 1-liner Al, especially the lot you posted in[/quote]
the last few hours. Could it be due to the gradational
effects of the full moon+1 that makes you produce these
profound and pregnant 1-worders?...
or are you just a lunatic "idiot", to use your other favorite
term, by which you have characterized yourself ~ 5000 x?
[quote]
But even worse, Al, you have plagiarized the "Nothing"[/quote]
retort from Scott Nudds, THE "idiot". That>s a shame, Al.
hanson

Llertnac Cire · Guest

"dedanoe" <dedanoe@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0adf91d8-56da-404a-9c50-e73019249390@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 8:14 pm, s...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
[quote]rolfguthm...@uol.com.br (Rolf Guthmann) wrote:

snip[/quote]

[quote]read more »

gravity is something very easy to destroy with ultra sound cavity.
[/quote]
I>ll bite, so how do you destroy gravity with an ultra sound cavity? If
there is nothing, then there is no gravity, therefore nothing destroys
gravity :^)

-eric

Weatherlawyer · Guest

On Apr 8, 11:23 pm, Rodney Blackall <rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]
Date: 08 Apr 2008 1530
Subject: The Met Office Monthly Tropical Cyclone Summary

The March 2008 edition of this publication has just been released
and is available on the Met Office World Wide Web sitehttp://www.metoffice.gov.ukunder the menu "Weather/World Weather" or go
direct tohttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/tropicalcyclone/tcbulletins/2008/....
[/quote]
8 April 2006
Tropical Cyclones workshop
Filed under:

* Climate Science

-- gavin @ 11:45 AM

One of the nice things about a being a scientist is that you can
sometimes go to workshops and meetings and actually hear something new
now and again. At the well-timed Tropical Cyclones and Climate
Workshop at Columbia a week or so ago, I got a chance to sit in and
listen to Emanuel, Landsea, Knutson and Bell talking about their
recent work, but I also got to hear some new voices (and issues) in
the discussion. It was all pretty enlightening even if it didn>t end
up in complete reconciliation of the different views.

I won>t bother recapping the main points of contention (you can read
about them here and here), but instead I>ll just mention a few salient
points that struck me as interesting.

Data quality: No-one was happy with the current state of the
historical Tropical Cyclone (TC) databases, and some questions were
even raised (by Landsea) about the quality of the satellite-era record
(though no evidence was presented that demonstrated a real problem).
However, no-one questioned the recent rise in hurricane activity in
the Atlantic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/tropical-cyclones-workshop/

I wonder what is meant by:
"No-one was happy with the current state of the historical Tropical
Cyclone databases..."


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Miscelaneous	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11