Photon counting for the masses

That's true, it's not so hard to pick a nuclear resonance out of the noise, when it's weakly coupled. Relaxation times in the seconds makes for very high Q and very narrow spectral lines.

I haven't heard of this Zeeman splitting method before though; is that due to spin selection rules? Looks to be something here,

Tim

Enormous food stamps might have saved them.

Certainly. How many conservative musicians do you meet? Sociologists?

That

But it does.

It is disgraceful, that Europeons are so anti-Semitic, considering the history.

Not a "fringe" at all.

Bullshit.

Actually, I believe he said that a massive object could not be accelerated to a superliminal speed. There is nothing that says they can't exist.

Is it split or absorbed and re-emitted as two?

And kill the trees? The only means of soaking the nasty CO2 out of the atmosphere? The EPA wouldn't have stood for it.

The mammals went Gault?

dp/0465008216

Sorry, but it doesn't. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but the results of a fMRI don't validate anyone.

As for "compassionate conservatism" - I'll believe it when I see it. I have never seen it in the wild.

=20

magnets

Neither way. The particle are accelerated with many megawatts (many gigawatts these days) of microwave energy. The beam is turned with huge superconducting magnets in order to travel in a "circle".

rocks with incredible force.

Try reading (or listen to, it is available as an audiobook) "Surely you must be joking, Mr. Feynman?"

You might change your mind.

?-)

Religion isn't science. So? Why do so many insist on equating an apple and an orangutan?

Why would you hold "them" to any standards? Are you their keeper?

But you *can* propose an experiment, even it it's not possible today, that would show your pet theory false. It is then "falsifiable". Falsifiabilty has nothing to do with technology.

Why would "we" call it anything? ...well, unless we have to call it "fraud".

All we have to do is call it "AGW", if we need another money sink.

Then you're blind as a bat!

is

is

or

also

there

because=20

=20

were=20

=20

=20

=20

most=20

Poxy hell, how could you have missed the point that badly!!! Crap, it = has to be willful.

?-)

Not without a place to spend them, and someone to deliver their food. :(

=20

as=20

=20

on=20

be=20

Two words: nanoparticles, nanofibers.

?-)

=20

and=20

Don't make that bet too gratuitously, Radithor (tm) and many other of the nostrums actually did contain radioactives.

advocate

and=20

=20

Also Thalidomide.

Just the same, in the large the benefits outweigh the problems.

?-)

Yeah, I've read it. I was trying to make a joke. And failing :)

-- Les Cargill

ERROR! Must sterilize!

1. It is NOT necessary to formulate the question so.
2. It is objectively testable as well. Poor you that did not know that yet. See Kohlberg and Elliot for example.

See above. Then see testability of deity. My mom was reliable, deity not so much.

Mom was testable, deity not so much.

YMMV