Not exact matches
«If you're going to use an MRI scan or a CT scan or...
do something like radiosurgery, you need a team of people, because nobody has the expertise to span neurosurgery, the medical portion of
radiation oncology, and medical
physics,» says Frank Bova, professor of neurosurgery at the University of Florida medical school in Gainesville.
The British company manufactured a
radiation - absorbing carbon material that could hide battleships from radar detection but didn't know the
physics of how it worked.
During these two significant events, «the amount of
radiation that reached the surface was less than that which would
done if these aerosols had not been there,» Mª Ángeles Obregón, researcher in the
Physics department of the University of Extremadura (UEx) and the University of Évora (Portugal) and lead author of this study, explains.
Sure, the aether doesn't exist and electromagnetic
radiation propagates through vacuum without any problem whatsoever, and the change in understanding helped revolutionize
physics.
What is
done in
radiation codes is APPROXIMATION, this is fairly different fron cloud parameterizations for instance since, in that case, there is some
physics which is by - passed because the
physics works at a smaller scale.
I
do not advise throwing out
radiation physics, N - S equations, absorption / emission curves and any of the
physics already involved.
Most people don't understand the details of atmospheric
physics or principal components analysis, and so take many statements about «back -
radiation» and «hockeysticks» on trust.
They had a plausible basis in the
radiation physics, which now needs defending, and they don't see they are distorting the science, because the moral issue is clear.
(I'm certain you have mastered Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of
physics and understand action principles), electrodynamics (so that Maxwell's equations are no mystery to you, nor is relativity theory and the theory of electromagnetic
radiation —
did I mention that the other textbook I've written is a graduate level text in classical electrodynamics?)
> • and is founded upon
radiation - transport
physics, that As
do analyses with radically different, non-alarmist conclusions
You didn't mention the citation in TBS to the source article from the American Journal of
Physics («How hot is
radiation?»
Yes, for the latter type I think we have a winner — Plimer, who
did as creepy a job attacking creationism as he's
doing now attacking
radiation physics.
Martin Lewitt, you are right, I
do not «believe» in «back
radiation», just plain
radiation as taught in
physics.
However, I
do consider sentences as incorrect with respect to
physics that state only: «back
radiation» is warming the surface.
It is a classical
physics consequence of the accelerations of electric charge; which according to Maxwell's equations must (and
do) result in the
radiation of an EM wave (or photon if you wish; which has a continuous energy spectrum; not a quantized one.