Achivements in Physics this year 2009
Sanny
made in Physics this year.
1. Most Important Water Found on Moon By Indian Space Mission. and
Dropping Loaded Sattelite on Moons pole was unsuccesful as the Cammera
could not find anything due to darkness.
2. Global warming accepted by all countries and they should work to
reduce pollution So that the temperature do not rise by 2 degrees
(This Century). Otherwise half of the cities near Oceans will submerge
in water by end of this century.
I hope instead of just paper work, Real Ground work is done.
According to Kyouto protocol World should have reduce CO2 emmisions to
1990 Levels by 2009 But that was not achieved. If targets are not
achieved Earth will face lots of Storms and Polar ice melts.
If Global warming is not stopped 50% of Humans will die due to
shortage of Food/ Homeless and Pollution and Diseases.
3. The LHC was made operational. I hope no Black holes were created.
I think all risks should be studied before each experiment is done on
LHC [ Large Hardon Collider ].
A boy was playing with Knife. He threw knife towards a few people but
no one got hurted. He kept throwing but his aim was weak so knife was
not hurting people
People complained that Child is throwing knifes at us. Child replied I
threw 10 times No one was hurted So allow me to throw more knife since
no one was hurted. Will this logic work?
Science needs to be tested at each step otherwise accidents like
Chernobyls (Russia) and Space Shuttule Columia explosions will happen
again.
If some thing do not happens once gives no guareenty it wont happen
again. Since the parameters may be changed. So scientists should study
the output / Results before each Experiment you do.
4. Pluto was discarded as a planet. Since it is quite far away and
smaller in size.
Any other Physics Achievement this year?
Bye
Sanny
----
Chat with Physics Teacher:
It is your Friend, You ask Questions and It will answer all your
Questions.
Only ask Physics Questions else the Teacher will get Mad.
7
> 2. Global warming accepted by all countries
Nope.
> and they should work to
> reduce pollution So that the temperature do not rise by 2 degrees
> (This Century). Otherwise half of the cities near Oceans will submerge
> in water by end of this century.
>
> I hope instead of just paper work, Real Ground work is done.
>
> According to Kyouto protocol World should have reduce CO2 emmisions to
> 1990 Levels by 2009 But that was not achieved. If targets are not
> achieved Earth will face lots of Storms and Polar ice melts.
>
> If Global warming is not stopped 50% of Humans will die due to
> shortage of Food/ Homeless and Pollution and Diseases.
Holowarming is a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holwarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
tadchem
> As this year is passing I decided to recollect important achievements
> made in Physics this year.
>
> 1. Most Important Water Found on Moon By Indian Space Mission.
An important benchmark for India, perhaps, but it has long been known
that there is water in the moon's 'dark places.' The questions waere
'how much' and 'could it be practically extracted to support a moon
base?'
> 2. Global warming accepted by all countries
Sorry. That's not an achievement in physics. That is an achievement
in politics.
> I hope instead of just paper work, Real Ground work is done.
>
> According to Kyouto protocol World should have reduce CO2 emmisions to
> 1990 Levels by 2009 But that was not achieved.
...and yet there has been no climate 'meltdown', as was predicted.
> If targets are not
> achieved Earth will face lots of Storms and Polar ice melts.
CO2 levels have increased 30% since the alarms started ringing, yet
the planet is not significantly warmer than it was in 1976, as if we
knew exactly what to measure and could measure it accurately and
meaningfully.
> If Global warming is not stopped 50% of Humans will die due to
> shortage of Food/ Homeless and Pollution and Diseases.
If we do what the alarmists are calling for, then global affluence
(energy use, productivity, will drop
If the 'global warming' crisis is imagonary and a result of misapplied
and misinterpreted computer models, then the efforts to "stop" it are
disastrously wasteful.
jonnie
AGREED!
And they LOST the data, and they will not provide it for independent
verification.
Rav1ng rabbit
But you can demonstrate CO2 infrared absorption in your kitchen.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
chazwin
> As this year is passing I decided to recollect important achievements
> made in Physics this year.
>
> 1. Most Important Water Found on Moon By Indian Space Mission. and
> Dropping Loaded Sattelite on Moons pole was unsuccesful as the Cammera
> could not find anything due to darkness.
>
> 2. Global warming accepted by all countries and they should work to
> reduce pollution So that the temperature do not rise by 2 degrees
> (This Century). Otherwise half of the cities near Oceans will submerge
> in water by end of this century.
>
> I hope instead of just paper work, Real Ground work is done.
>
> According to Kyouto protocol World should have reduce CO2 emmisions to
> 1990 Levels by 2009 But that was not achieved. If targets are not
> achieved Earth will face lots of Storms and Polar ice melts.
>
> If Global warming is not stopped 50% of Humans will die due to
> shortage of Food/ Homeless and Pollution and Diseases.
If only this were true. It's a shame that we could not increase GW to
kill maybe 70 or 80 %.
That would be the only way the earth would be saved.
>
> 3. The LHC was made operational. I hope no Black holes were created.
>
> I think all risks should be studied before each experiment is done on
> LHC [ Large Hardon Collider ].
>
> A boy was playing with Knife. He threw knife towards a few people but
> no one got hurted. He kept throwing but his aim was weak so knife was
> not hurting people
>
> People complained that Child is throwing knifes at us. Child replied I
> threw 10 times No one was hurted So allow me to throw more knife since
> no one was hurted. Will this logic work?
>
> Science needs to be tested at each step otherwise accidents like
> Chernobyls (Russia) and Space Shuttule Columia explosions will happen
> again.
Chernobyl and 3 mile Island were all 'tested', as was the Shuttle.
Duh!!!!
The hysteria over GW will mean the massive proliferation of new
nuclear power stations.
There will be more disasters
>
> If some thing do not happens once gives no guareenty it wont happen
> again. Since the parameters may be changed. So scientists should study
> the output / Results before each Experiment you do.
How old are you 12?
>
> 4. Pluto was discarded as a planet. Since it is quite far away and
> smaller in size.
This is an expression of human hybris and invalid abstraction. Planets
are not scientifically defined.
They are arbitrary
chazwin
Yes you can - but not with 0.038% you can't. You can only disprove
that such tiny amounts are meaningful.
Rav1ng rabbit
7
Only its a pack of fake science and AGW lies:
"..net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2)"
Try a bigger number like ~1.3kW/m2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
Fake AGW percentages:
"...demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the
net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
More like 0.02%.
These *FSCKING* AGW holowarmers need
ALL THEIR FUNDING TO BE CUT IMMEDIATELY!
Surfer
<website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>Holowarming is a hoax.
>
I wish it was. But recent evidence suggests otherwise:
Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing:
(See graph at right)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Larger image here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn
Global sea level rise is accelerating
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:
1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year
The thinning of a gigantic glacier in Antarctica is accelerating
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm
July 2009 marked the hottest the world's oceans have been since
recorded keeping began 130 years ago
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/20/ocean-temperature.html
>
>It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data...
>
Its unlikely all the above data was faked.
>
>The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
>DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
>become a major factor to global warming.
>
Early research by physicists showed it was possible:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2
<Start extract>
The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a
problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly
observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the
Cold War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research.
American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding,
notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to
answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for
pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the
atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security.
<snip>
But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air
significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed
computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by
layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956,
such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power
of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the
challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the
atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would
increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this
qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would
bring a 3-4�C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the
current rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average
global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."(26)
The computation, like Callendar's, paid no attention to possible
changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to
convince scientists. "It is almost certain," one authority scolded,
"that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions."(27) Yet
Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the
greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate
change could be "a serious problem to future generations" � although
not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was
mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery
of the ice ages. "If at the end of this century the average
temperature has continued to rise," he wrote, then it would be "firmly
established" that CO2 could cause climate change.(28)
<End extract>
Uncle Al
>
> As this year is passing I decided to recollect important achievements
> made in Physics this year.
>
> 1. Most Important Water Found on Moon By Indian Space Mission. and
> Dropping Loaded Sattelite on Moons pole was unsuccesful as the Cammera
> could not find anything due to darkness.
Christ you are stooopid. NASA brought its own water as excess liq.
O2/liq. H2 tankage in the Centaur terminal stage. What NASA
spectroscopically detected is remarkably consonantce with what they
brought along. Had they not vented a lot of tankage by accident the
signal would have been just as predicted - huge and totally corrupt.
2. Global warming
[snip rest of crap]
Exposed as fraud.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
The Consulate
"Sanny" <softt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfa43a3d-4fb0-417e...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> 4. Pluto was discarded as a planet. Since it is quite far
> away and
> smaller in size.
>
That was quite some achievement.
Sanny
> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> and thats why there is so much of it about.
If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
We have warm 20 - 40 Celcius due to greenhouse effect. Remember
millions years back there was ice age and earth was surrounded by ice
everywhere including Equator.
So greenhouse effect from water and clouds have raised earth
temperaturs by some 100 Celcius.
Earth is relatively same place where it was in Ice Age. But Greenhouse
effect has risen the temperature and Earth has Oceans and hot Equator.
Now a equilibrium is met. If water and clouds are not there earth will
freeze down to -100 celcius below melting point of ice.
But CO2 concentration if increased we will get earth hotter by 2
Celcius. And when earth will be hot by 2 celcius that is enough to
melt all ice caps and increase sea levels.
Further increase in temperature is favorable for insects. They will
breed more and cause more diseases. More deserts will be formed. More
Floods will come + half cities near shores will submerge. And large
scale Storms will kill millions living near oceans.
Increase in 2 Celcius temp this Century will kill atleast 50% of
Humans due to scarce Food/ Homeless/ Diseases
So Water vapors have caused greenhouse that has increased earth
temperatures by 100-200 celcius. That was good for Humans. But CO2
emmision will further increase by 2 Celcius disturbing the natures
equilibrium that will be death for Humans.
Bye
Sanny
--
Chat with Physics Teacher: ( Most Intelligent in the World )
Rav1ng rabbit
Ah, the specialist is talking, how about reading some science articles
rather than watching the loony tunes network?
Rav1ng rabbit
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:14:14 GMT, 7
> <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> Holowarming is a hoax.
>>
> I wish it was. But recent evidence suggests otherwise:
>
> Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing:
> (See graph at right)
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
> Larger image here
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn
>
>
> Global sea level rise is accelerating
> http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
>
> Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
> due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
> The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:
>
> 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
> 1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year
Uh Uh, you are referring to two different techniques. Satellite
altimetry picks up the 3.3 mm/year while tide gauges do the 1.7 mm/year.
But if you analyse the tide gauges since 1990 you still get 1.7 mm/year
or so.
Q
> bring a 3-4�C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the
> current rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average
> global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."(26)
>
> The computation, like Callendar's, paid no attention to possible
> changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to
> convince scientists. "It is almost certain," one authority scolded,
> "that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions."(27) Yet
> Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the
> greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate
> change could be "a serious problem to future generations" � although
> not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was
> mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery
> of the ice ages. "If at the end of this century the average
> temperature has continued to rise," he wrote, then it would be "firmly
> established" that CO2 could cause climate change.(28)
>
> <End extract>
>
>
>
>
Androcles
"Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:4b35c595$0$22935$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Surfer wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:14:14 GMT, 7
>> <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Holowarming is a hoax.
>>>
>> I wish it was. But recent evidence suggests otherwise:
>>
>> Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing:
>> (See graph at right)
>> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
>> Larger image here
>> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn
>>
>>
>> Global sea level rise is accelerating
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
>>
>> Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water
>> due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice.
>> The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows:
>>
>> 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year
>> 1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year
>
> Uh Uh, you are referring to two different techniques. Satellite
> altimetry picks up the 3.3 mm/year while tide gauges do the 1.7 mm/year.
> But if you analyse the tide gauges since 1990 you still get 1.7 mm/year
> or so.
>
> Q
Perhaps the altimetry crew are working on the Earth's diameter
and the tidal gauge crowd are rounding up from 1.65 mm/year
for the radius. That way both are correct.
The thermal temperature argument is a rather silly, though.
North Pole temp is 32 F and it stays that way until all ice is melted
as any schoolboy with a beaker of ice, a thermometer, a tripod
and a bunsen burner would know.
Rav1ng rabbit
It could be slushy then. And, Greenland could become slush as well
because of the change in the local albedo. Do you know this guy, Al Bedo?
Q
Sanny
Well Said.
Bye
Sanny
Talk with Physics Teacher
7
So you rely on pseudo science to further your cause?
You should produce some accurate number that
proves its a better number than a contrived
number like 0.02%.
Over what period is this infra-red band that excludes all infra-red bands
except LW crap has value of 14% valid? Just between the hours
of 12.00 and 12.01 ? Have you tried integrating over a 24 hour period?
Do you get better values than 0.02%?
7
And it is still fruit cake science if you want to exclude water vapor.
This is how a fruitcake science is born.
You give a fruitcake to a fruitcake scientist and ask him how many
trees we should grow.
He chops it into smaller chunks and measures fruit content of the
larger chunks and concludes all fruitcakes are 90% fruit.
The crumbs were to small to pick up and weigh.
Grow more fruit trees he recommends to politicians.
Holowarming is still a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holwarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
> "It is almost certain," one authority scolded,
Rav1ng rabbit
Talk to someone who did this for you rather than making up you own shit,
here are some links:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/jin/rtset.html
http://tall.conted.ox.ac.uk/testarea/climatechange/climate.html
etc etc.
Androcles
Some simple facts about climate.
Negative feedback:
1) Sun heats ocean.
2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.
3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.
4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.
Positive feedback:
5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.
6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.
7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.
Changing the balance:
8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.
9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.
10) Earth is tilted.
11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.
12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer). Result, positive feedback
predominates, Ice Age.
13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
global warming.
14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in temperature as a function of
precession.
15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.
16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "Carbon cycle".
It's been that way for at least 3 billion years; homo neanderthalensis
is alive and well and arrogant enough to say he causes it. He is,
of course, an idiot who thinks he can "combat" the quite natural
temperature cycle of a couple of degrees. Nature doesn't care if he
builds cities along the coast or birds build nests in trees, the rule is
ADAPT OR DIE.
So when your coastal cities are flooded as they will be and you have
no control over that, move inland or go and live in Greenland. You
can fight for control of land, homo neanderthalensis is a territorial
animal and the fittest survive. Nuke the opposition and pass your own
genes on.
7
All crap as predictable as holowarming made up and manipulated data
compounded with circular arguments.
Not a single sausage that answers the question!!!!!!!!!!
Are all these holowarming crap science done for 1 minute
between 12:00 noon to 12:01 or is it integrated over
an entire 24 hour period?
Holowarming is a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holwarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead they assume like fruit cakes
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 is enough to get an answer.
Uncle Al
>
> > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
> temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
Hey fucking stooopid - tell us how waterless Earth with 0.656 the
orbital radius and 2.32 times the solar constant of Mars (measured
1376.6 W/m^2 and 589.2 W/m^2 respectively ) would be at equilibrium
140 C cooler than Mars' average -63� C.
BradGuth
The single most volumetric substance that we humans have added to the
natural atmospheric environment is water.
Increasing the average global atmospheric saturation of 13e3 km3 by
even a factor of 0.1% (13e9 m3) would represent a substantial
variation boost from the natural cycle of water.
Some of us are directly/indirectly responsible for evaporating 10+ m3/
day, while most others are not contributing one m3/day, and otherwise
the poorest at something less than 0.1 m3/day. (I'm talking all-
inclusive)
~ BG
Sanny
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > > and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> > If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
> > temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Hey fucking stooopid - tell us how waterless Earth with 0.656 the
> orbital radius and 2.32 times the solar constant of Mars (measured
> 1376.6 W/m^2 and 589.2 W/m^2 respectively ) would be at equilibrium
> 140 C cooler than Mars' average -63° C.
My figure was not based on any tech article/ experiment. It was a
rough figure.
Well incase on mars without water the temp is -63° C.Then Earth it
would be at -40° C.at equator and -100° C.at poles. Incase there are
no water vapors and cloud.
-200° C.is over exagration. It was based on just assumption. But with
figures on Mars from you, I can predict it to be arround -40° C at
equator and -100° C.at poles. incase water vapors are not present.
Water Vapors has raised earth temperatures by 100° C.Which was good
for Humans to survive. But now a equilibrium has met. Incase CO2
concentration is increased. The earth will be warmer by 2° C this
Century. and that will have devasting effects on the planet earth.
When earth will be hot by 2 celcius that is enough to melt all ice
caps and increase sea levels.
Further increase in temperature is favorable for insects. They will
breed more and cause more diseases. More deserts will be formed. More
Floods will come + half cities near shores will submerge. And large
scale Storms will kill millions living near oceans.
Increase in 2 Celcius temp this Century will kill atleast 50% of
Humans due to scarce Food/ Homeless/ Diseases
Bye
Rav1ng rabbit
Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against
man-made global warming.
The science is still based on data which stands on its own, models are
perfectly valid, there is agreement between data and models, and the
models are able to predict what will happen to man-made global warming
in a century from now. Our predicament is charted a century ahead, yet
we fail to reach firm international agreement to curb greenhouse gas
emissions.
People who deny man-made global warming (AGW deniers) show an irrational
behavior frighting similar to creationists opposing Darwin's evolution
theory. The parallels are:
1) Data are refuted: AGW deniers will try at length to ignore the fact
that greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature can be determined up
to 500k years ago, creationists deny the existence of fossils and
isotope dating techniques allowing to determine their age.
2) Methods are refuted: AGW deniers will try at length to explain that
greenhouse gases don't exist or are not well understood and that those
gases can not possibly explain warming. Creationists will deny that DNA
analysis is able to track the development of species, or that humans are
genetically related to monkeys.
3) A truth is defined: AGW deniers mention that data and methods are not
100% accurate and that therefore conclusions related to man-made global
warming can't be true. Creationists will insert their own truth which is
in their view firmly written down in the book of genesis.
4) An alternative explanation is fabricated: AGW deniers say that
climate variations are very natural and that it is all caused by the
Sun. Creationist will tell you that the Earth was created in 7 days and
that all known species were put on Earth by god, all species were also
saved by Noah's arc while the Earth was flooded.
Both denier communities have both formed powerful lobby groups funded by
an industry. These groups desperately seek followers for their church,
including politicians to pay lip service to their lobby group.
That is the ugly analogy between AGW denial and creationism on the brink
of 2009 after the Copenhagen summit.
Rav1ng rabbit
Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
Q
Androcles
Totally illogical thinking.
Let me add to this, on day 365 and counting after rabbit gate the Easter
Bunny deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking
against the Easter Bunny laying chocolate eggs.
> The science is still based on data which stands on its own, models are
> perfectly valid, there is agreement between data and models, and the
> models are able to predict what will happen to man-made global warming
> in a century from now. Our predicament is charted a century ahead, yet
> we fail to reach firm international agreement to curb greenhouse gas
> emissions.
The science is still based on chocolate eggs which stands on its own,
models are perfectly valid, there is agreement between eggs and models,
and the models are able to predict what will happen to Easter Bunny laid
chocolate eggs in a century from now. Our predicament is charted a
century ahead, yet we fail to reach firm international agreement to curb
rabbit hunting.
> People who deny man-made global warming (AGW deniers) show an irrational
> behavior frighting similar to creationists opposing Darwin's evolution
> theory.
People who deny Easter Bunny laid chocolate eggs (Easter Bunny deniers)
show an irrational behavior frightening similar to realists opposing Santa's
blocked chimney theory.
CHOCOLATE EGGS ARE REAL! THEY APPEAR EVERY YEAR
AT EASTER! Therefore they MUST have been laid by the Easter Bunny.
Rest of ignorant crap deleted unread; you have no logic or logical
argument, merely blind prejudice. Fuck off, you are not any kind
of scientist.
Sanny
> day, while most others are not contributing one m3/day, and otherwise
> the poorest at something less than 0.1 m3/day. (I'm talking all-
> inclusive)
Most of the water we evaporate comes back on earth after condensing.
or by rains.
Have you seen everyday leaves/ grass gets wet. The evaporated water
comes back and is taken by plants roots.
But CO2 remain in air for 4-5 years. Thats the big problem with CO2.
Water Vapor form Clouds and is returned back by rains, Thats not the
case for CO2.
Bye
Sanny
Intelligent Talks: http://www.GetClub.com
Bruce Richmond
>
> Q
>
> --
> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about you read
Bruce Richmond
> On Dec 26, 11:42 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sanny wrote:
>
> > > > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > > > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > > > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > > > and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> > > If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
> > > temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
>
> > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > Hey fucking stooopid - tell us how waterless Earth with 0.656 the
> > orbital radius and 2.32 times the solar constant of Mars (measured
> > 1376.6 W/m^2 and 589.2 W/m^2 respectively ) would be at equilibrium
> > 140 C cooler than Mars' average -63° C.
>
> My figure was not based on any tech article/ experiment. It was a
> rough figure.
IOW a wild ass guess like much of the AGW alarmist crap.
Bruce Richmond
LOL, no just manipulation of the data, questionable adjustments to the
data, distortion of the peer review process, concerted efforts to
avoid the release of information requested under the freedom of
information act, and much more. AGW is finally getting the attention
it deserves.
7
You still don't get it.
I have just spat at your face and told you your pseudo science sucks.
What did you do? You pulled a random set of pointers.
Then when your pointers got rubbished, you went into print
with this long rant.
Thats not gonna work you you or your cause!!!
Lets do this again!
I'll give you 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
and string it into a coherent answer.
The answer must be your answer and you must believe in them.
You loose marks as soon as you rant / waffle or parrot
others to deliberately avoid thinking for yourself.
Here are my assertions again:
Holowarming is a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
Nightcrawler
> Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
> deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against
> man-made global warming.
That's outright bullshit.
BradGuth
> > Some of us are directly/indirectly responsible for evaporating 10+ m3/
> > day, while most others are not contributing one m3/day, and otherwise
> > the poorest at something less than 0.1 m3/day. (I'm talking all-
> > inclusive)
>
> Most of the water we evaporate comes back on earth after condensing.
> or by rains.
You mean acid rains, because little of our artificially evaporated
water is pure h2o.
>
> Have you seen everyday leaves/ grass gets wet. The evaporated water
> comes back and is taken by plants roots.
Some plants and other forms of complex biodiversity like acidic water,
while others do not. Wet NOx is pretty much good for nothing.
>
> But CO2 remain in air for 4-5 years. Thats the big problem with CO2.
> Water Vapor form Clouds and is returned back by rains, Thats not the
> case for CO2.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Intelligent Talks:http://www.GetClub.com
CO2 is a heavy element that usually keeps itself below the tree-line
in the mountains. Typically only turboprop, jet and rocket exhaust
gets deployed above that tree line, whereas that CO2 and NOx
eventually works its way towards the surface (including via rain).
CO2 is always most dense or saturated near the surface and obviously
greatest below ground (even deep under water are pools or reservoirs
of CO2).
As we continually add CO2 and NOx to our environment, whereas besides
getting more acidic rain, that upper tree-line elevation should
eventually increase unless those acidic levels are too great for that
kind of biodiversity.
Actually, the artificial or unnatural release of methane is a far
worse element for our environment. CH4 combined along with our CO2,
NOx, H2O and loads of various particles of soot is obviously worse
yet.
~ BG
Rav1ng rabbit
How about Tyndall around 1860?
Bruce Richmond
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > How about you read
>
>
> How about Tyndall around 1860?
>
> Q
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Better read this quick because history has a way of changing at Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
"He was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers
of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber
of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling
air temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is
negligible."
Looks like he got it right. You're the one that named him as an
athority. Are you going to accept his conclusions or call him a liar
and find someone else?
Nightcrawler
> "He was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers
> of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber
> of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling
> air temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is
> negligible."
>
> Looks like he got it right. You're the one that named him as an
> athority. Are you going to accept his conclusions or call him a liar
> and find someone else?
>
There is one fact that the lamers will never admit, and that is the fact
that water vapor makes up 99% of the greenhouse effect. Everything else
is NOTHING. Any fool that brings up AGW is talking out of their ass.
Professional data rigger
Tyndall got it right 150 years ago and water vapor is a strong
greenhouse gas. Yet "water" comes in several forms and it has these
pesky phase transitions that you perhaps forgot. Water is liquid, frozen
or vapor, and we get to see them all on earth while we don't get to see
phase transitions from CO2 and CH4. In reality water vapor only exists
in the lower troposphere up to about 2 km or so, beyond 8 km altitude
there is no more water vapor, the last remnants are these cirrus clouds
hanging in there. You are looking at thin ice crystals. CO2 and CH4
remain in gaseous form, and that leaves about 90 km of the upper
troposphere and the stratosphere for oxigen, nitrogen and greenhouse
gases like CO2 and CH4.
If you do the radiative transfer calculation with modtran that includes
water vapor in the lower tropsphere then you'll soon find out that IR
absorption of CO2 and CH4 provide all the flux you need to explain the
global warming that is observed since the industrial revolution. Water
vapor, and in particular clouds, provide a negative feedback in the
lower troposphere.
But the way the real world (instead of the AGW deniers world) works is
that the climate is driven by both and that the water vapor negative
feedback is outnumbered by the positive effect of CO2 and CH4. For this
reason you find a positive climate sensitivity factor of 0.75 K/(W/m^2)
from ice cores and recent warming since the industrial revolution. The
warming potential added since 1850 is about 1.5 Watt/m^2, and we will
continue to add more thanks to our addiction to fossil fuels.
So Tyndall got it right after all, and there is still anthropogenic
global warming AND water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas AND water
vapor provides a negative feedback.
Now, did you understand this, kid? Or do you need to call the AGW
deniers headquarters to receive new instructions on how to proceed from
here?
Q
--
... Mike's Nature trick .. to hide the decline ...
Professional data rigger
Just try to understand what an observed climate sensitivity factor of
0.75 K/(W/m^2) really is about and how it already includes the effect of
water vapor.
For this reason (the climate sensitivity factor) climate scientists will
never take water vapor too serious, except if you mix it in liquid form
with C2H5OH.
uh uh uh, yek yek yek,
7
> Nightcrawler wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 10:50 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> "He was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers
>>> of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
>>> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber
>>> of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling
>>> air temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is
>>> negligible."
>>>
>>> Looks like he got it right. You're the one that named him as an
>>> athority. Are you going to accept his conclusions or call him a liar
>>> and find someone else?
>>>
>>
>> There is one fact that the lamers will never admit, and that is the fact
>> that water vapor makes up 99% of the greenhouse effect. Everything else
>> is NOTHING. Any fool that brings up AGW is talking out of their ass.
>
> Just try to understand what an observed climate sensitivity factor of
> 0.75 K/(W/m^2) really is about and how it already includes the effect of
> water vapor.
Oh no no! You explain what you understand first!!!!!!!!!!
And then you will get marks where it makes sense.
If you are thinking pretentious pointing is going work, think again!
You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
and string it into a coherent answer.
The answer must be your answer and you must believe in them.
You loose marks as soon as you rant / waffle or parrot
others to deliberately avoid thinking for yourself.
> For this reason (the climate sensitivity factor) climate scientists will
> never take water vapor too serious,
And it is still fruit cake science if you want to exclude water vapor.
This is how a fruitcake science is born.
You give a fruitcake to a fruitcake scientist and ask him how many
trees we should grow.
He chops it into smaller chunks and measures fruit content of the
larger chunks and concludes all fruitcakes are 90% fruit.
The crumbs were to small to pick up and weigh.
Grow more fruit trees he recommends to politicians.
> except if you mix it in liquid form
> with C2H5OH.
>
> uh uh uh, yek yek yek,
Hallucinate as much as you want fool!
Water vapor is still 99% of the major heat carrying gas
on planet Earth.
Holowarming is still a hoax.
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
Raving Rabb1t
We are not talking about the weather, we are talking about the global
climate where the integration scales are greater than 10000 km and where
the time scales are longer than 10 years.
But I triggered a sensitive nerve here, see how much crap he produced by
pointing out a fatal flaw in his water vapor logic. So let me repeat
once again:
Just try to understand what an observed steady state climate sensitivity
factor of 0.75 K/(W/m^2) really is about and how it already includes the
effect of water vapor. Why is this a positive factor, and not a negative
factor? The IPCC is right.
You will actually find a lower climate sensitivity factor for the recent
150 years because we are still getting the warming from what we added in
those 150 years. It is called climate inertia. We saw the headlights of
an unstoppable freight train that will pass.
Unless we stop polluting more CO2/CH4 now climate inertia will kick us 6
degree centigrade upwards.
But fossil fools don't want to hear this, no cursing in their church is
allowed and a new "truth" is defined. Fossil fools show frighting
parallels to creationists.
Q
--
The raving rabbit follows AGW deniers
Nightcrawler
> We are not talking about the weather, we are talking about the global
> climate where the integration scales are greater than 10000 km and where
> the time scales are longer than 10 years.
<snip blather>
The Earth's climate inertia is propelled by solar output and particulate
reflection. Throw in some orbital variables for effect.
CO2 and CH4 are not indicators of future warming. In fact, they only
stabilize the system when their concentrations reach a point where they
actually do have an effect on heat retention. Current atmospheric
levels indicate extremely low levels of both gases when compared to
prior atmospheric conditions.
Current climate models used by the climate frauds primarily focus
on ground level temperatures. This method is wrong.
The Earth is still in an interglacial period. Having it get warmer
is a good thing. Believe me, we *DO NOT* want it getting colder.
Measuring climate by 10 year scales is bogus. Even 100 year scales
are too small of a time slice to use for developing a *NORM*.
So far, nothing in our current climate is out of the current *NORM*.
Get over it. The Earth has been warmer. The Earth has been colder.
The Earth will do both again regardless of what humans do.
Uncle Al
>
> On Dec 26, 11:42 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Sanny wrote:
> >
> > > > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > > > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > > > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > > > and thats why there is so much of it about.
> >
> > > If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
> > > temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
> >
> > [snip rest of crap]
> >
> > Hey fucking stooopid - tell us how waterless Earth with 0.656 the
> > orbital radius and 2.32 times the solar constant of Mars (measured
> > 1376.6 W/m^2 and 589.2 W/m^2 respectively ) would be at equilibrium
> > 140 C cooler than Mars' average -63� C.
>
> My figure was not based on any tech article/ experiment. It was a
> rough figure.
Shrikeback
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:42 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > Sanny wrote:
>
> > > > > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > > > > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > > > > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > > > > and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> > > > If Oceans & water vapors were not present, Earth would have
> > > > temperature as low as -200 degree Celcius.
>
> > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > Hey fucking stooopid - tell us how waterless Earth with 0.656 the
> > > orbital radius and 2.32 times the solar constant of Mars (measured
> > > 1376.6 W/m^2 and 589.2 W/m^2 respectively ) would be at equilibrium
> > > 140 C cooler than Mars' average -63° C.
>
> > My figure was not based on any tech article/ experiment. It was a
> > rough figure.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> idiot
I do declare; it's enough to give me a case of the
vopors. Catch me Rhett, I'm going to faint.
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B38EAED...@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Idiot.
[snip more crap]
Bigot.
[snip yet more crap]
Arsehole.
Semmalon
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:l48_m.21571$hg5....@newsfe05.ams2...
Do either of you think before you post?
Vhat thinking? call a putz a schmuck and vice-versa already.
Just keep having your fun and accomplishing what?
Now THERE's an excellent example of "nothing".
Are these groups FILLED with theoretical physicists?
--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!
Bruce Richmond
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> How about you read
>
> >>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/24/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-sc...
>
> >> How about Tyndall around 1860?
>
> >> Q
>
> >> --
> >> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
What part of, "Absorption by the bulk of the other gases is
negligible." did you not understand? The warming of CO2 is next to
nothing and the negative feedback of water vapor reduces it from
there.
> Now, did you understand this, kid? Or do you need to call the AGW
> deniers headquarters to receive new instructions on how to proceed from
> here?
>
> Q
>
> --
> ... Mike's Nature trick .. to hide the decline ...- Hide quoted text -
Ouroboros Rex
Lie.
and the negative feedback of water vapor reduces it from
> there.
Cite.
BradGuth
> "Sanny" <softtank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cfa43a3d-4fb0-417e...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 4. Pluto was discarded as a planet. Since it is quite far
> > away and
> > smaller in size.
>
> That was quite some achievement.
It's an icy binary planetoid, although there's no objective science
telling us that it's offering any solid water kinds of ice.
We can't even seem to deploy surface probes as safely soft-landed onto
our physically dark moon(Selene) that offers direct readings from
those polar craters of 25 K (that's actually way colder than liquid
nitrogen), suggesting the moon itself is giving off something less
than 22 mw/m2.
At 25 K there's a lot of potentially insulating gas (greenhouse gas)
keeping that deep crater shadowed location warmer than otherwise
possible. (at 25 K even liquid nitrogen is insulative)
~ BG
Anti Vigilante
You present a linear model for a chaotic process.
You lose.
I canna believe it cap'n. I agree with Andro on something.
Quick shut off the computer before it spreads.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hhe6vf$1b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Androcles presents a chaotic model for chaotic process.
>
> You present a linear model for a chaotic process.
>
> You lose.
>
> I canna believe it cap'n. I agree with Andro on something.
>
> Quick shut off the computer before it spreads.
>
Anyone can disagree, proving is a different ball-game.
It's minimum requirement is understanding and even that
falls short. Who does not understand the Sun crosses the
sky each day when he can see it does? Who would say the
Earth rotates instead? Does not the Moon also turn around
the Earth as the Sun does? Then prove it - or prove it doesn't.
--
New ideas are old ideas dressed up in jeans, t-shirts and Nikes. -
Androcles.
Bruce Richmond
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> How about you read
>
> >>>>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/24/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-sc...
>
> >>>> How about Tyndall around 1860?
>
> >>>> Q
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry
> >>>> Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd-Hidequoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
Yes, you are a lying sack of shit. The quote I provided was not mine
but from Wiki, which if anything is biased toward AGW. The quote was
from the first paragraph under "Main scientific work". Here is the
whole paragraph so you can't accuse me of taking it out of contex.
"Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the
capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat,
a.k.a. infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile
technology, was a significant early step in the history of absorption
spectroscopy of gases.[9] He was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water
vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. He concluded that water
vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and
is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the
bulk of the other gases is negligible. Prior to Tyndall it was widely
surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he
was first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly
absorbed infrared radiation.[10]"
It would not suprise me to see the above get edited away, but that is
what is there for now, with links to back it up.
> and the negative feedback of water vapor reduces it from
>
> > there.
>
> Cite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
From another pro-AGW site
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/
"The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface
is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds."
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is also has negative feedback
in the form of clouds. That feedback keeps the huge greenhouse effect
of water vapor in check. Against it the minor heating caused by CO2
doesn't stand a chance. Any heating by the CO2 will cause evaportion
of water, which will carry the heat upward to where it can give up the
heat and fall back to earth as rain.
Anti Vigilante
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
> news:hhe6vf$1b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Androcles presents a chaotic model for chaotic process.
>>
>> You present a linear model for a chaotic process.
>>
>> You lose.
>>
>> I canna believe it cap'n. I agree with Andro on something.
>>
>> Quick shut off the computer before it spreads.
>>
>>
> Anyone can disagree, proving is a different ball-game. It's minimum
> requirement is understanding and even that falls short. Who does not
> understand the Sun crosses the sky each day when he can see it does? Who
> would say the Earth rotates instead? Does not the Moon also turn around
> the Earth as the Sun does? Then prove it - or prove it doesn't.
Don't you think there should at least be an informed gut instinct. If I
push down on a spring it will go up and down not just stay there.
I do not believe the climate merely gets warm or cold. If there's global
warming we should be seeing longer winters and longer summers followed by
short spring and fall completely devastating the agricultural cycle. We
should see freak storms in mid air not touching ground. We should see
sudden drops in temperature followed by rare but devastating hurricanes.
The weather should go crazy not just get uncomfortable. But you see they
have a split personality; they will scare the children with more FAMILIAR
but more dangerous weather, whereas a true global warming or cooling
would have FREAKY weather. At the same time they predict this will take a
while maybe not as long as before but our kids will worry about it.
This is purely political and economic warfare.
Chaotic systems do not degrade gracefully. I had to complain for years
before my ideas were shown to be at least reasonable.
In attempting be unbiased and consistent they made it so our theories
have no shape, that they fit the silly two sides (MANY SIDES in reality)
to every story Maury Povich both sides format.
Science education has been reduced to a talk show.
They swung to the other extreme. Theories do have a kind of shape and
inertia to them which tells whether they are appropriate or whether they
are 5th grade mineral and botanic science. You know memorize memorize
memorize.
Androcles
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:44:49 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhe6vf$1b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Androcles presents a chaotic model for chaotic process.
>>>
>>> You present a linear model for a chaotic process.
>>>
>>> You lose.
>>>
>>> I canna believe it cap'n. I agree with Andro on something.
>>>
>>> Quick shut off the computer before it spreads.
>>>
>>>
>> Anyone can disagree, proving is a different ball-game. It's minimum
>> requirement is understanding and even that falls short. Who does not
>> understand the Sun crosses the sky each day when he can see it does? Who
>> would say the Earth rotates instead? Does not the Moon also turn around
>> the Earth as the Sun does? Then prove it - or prove it doesn't.
>
> Don't you think there should at least be an informed gut instinct. If I
> push down on a spring it will go up and down not just stay there.
The dividing line between intuition and faith is indistinct. If I heat your
spring to red heat and you then push down, what happens? It is no
longer elastic, it has become plastic, so your statement is not valid
under all circumstances. But I'll allow that in principle my changing
the circumstances could be construed as merely argumentative,
that cause (pushing on the spring) has the same effect (spring pushes
back) every time. Then it snows and Eurostar trains get water in the
electrics and stuck in the Chunnel so perhaps it's not so merely
argumentative after all.
>
> I do not believe the climate merely gets warm or cold. If there's global
> warming we should be seeing longer winters and longer summers followed by
> short spring and fall completely devastating the agricultural cycle.
Ok... that's your personal faith, your opinion. Proving it is a different
ball-game. What you'll do is convince yourself you are right and then
become blind to any counter-argument.
�There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.�� Marcus Tullius Cicero
> We
> should see freak storms in mid air not touching ground. We should see
> sudden drops in temperature followed by rare but devastating hurricanes.
>
> The weather should go crazy not just get uncomfortable. But you see they
> have a split personality; they will scare the children with more FAMILIAR
> but more dangerous weather, whereas a true global warming or cooling
> would have FREAKY weather. At the same time they predict this will take a
> while maybe not as long as before but our kids will worry about it.
>
> This is purely political and economic warfare.
>
> Chaotic systems do not degrade gracefully. I had to complain for years
> before my ideas were shown to be at least reasonable.
>
> In attempting be unbiased and consistent they made it so our theories
> have no shape, that they fit the silly two sides (MANY SIDES in reality)
> to every story Maury Povich both sides format.
>
> Science education has been reduced to a talk show.
>
It always was. <shrug>
Naming phenomena after past individuals has given is the
the amp, the volt, the newton, the pascal... the list is enormous.
Those who do so do in the hope that their own name, their own
discovery will live on. Science is as much an ego trip as winning
a football game. The unit of climate change is the lovelock.
Theories become facts when enough of the vociferous faithful
reach a consensus and say they are.
> They swung to the other extreme. Theories do have a kind of shape and
> inertia to them which tells whether they are appropriate or whether they
> are 5th grade mineral and botanic science. You know memorize memorize
> memorize.
I agree, I've referred to the inertia of ideas myself in the past.
�Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of
their heads.�� Galileo Galilei
The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Any advance in science comes from individuals, never from the sheep,
and through inertia, the acceptance of the theory (right or wrong)
takes place after the individual's death when it has become part myth
or legend with just a small element of truth.
If the planet warms and cools from natural causes (as the ices age
cycle shows) that's a good excuse for carbon taxes.
The two degree agreement at Copenhagen is meaningless, the
mean temperature won't budge until the ice melts as any schoolboy
with a thermometer in a cup of ice standing on a radiator will tell
you, and that's a simple experiment one can do in any home.
So let's talk about money... give me some of yours to help me
save the planet.
Anti Vigilante
> The dividing line between intuition and faith is indistinct. If I heat
> your spring to red heat and you then push down, what happens? It is no
> longer elastic, it has become plastic, so your statement is not valid
> under all circumstances. But I'll allow that in principle my changing
> the circumstances could be construed as merely argumentative, that cause
> (pushing on the spring) has the same effect (spring pushes back) every
> time. Then it snows and Eurostar trains get water in the electrics and
> stuck in the Chunnel so perhaps it's not so merely argumentative after
> all.
Not saying it was argumentative. I guess I find knowledge to come in
layers. That is complex systems require analyzing more than just
immediate side effects. Feedback loops are funny that way. Simple systems
don't interfere with each other as much.
I just object to simplifying the Earth as one blob. The antagonism toward
multiplicity really makes me nervous.
Climates changing versus climate change, multiple regional consistent
divergences from a stable normal behavior (whatever that is) vs global
warming (whatever that isn't).
>
>
>> I do not believe the climate merely gets warm or cold. If there's
>> global warming we should be seeing longer winters and longer summers
>> followed by short spring and fall completely devastating the
>> agricultural cycle.
>
> Ok... that's your personal faith, your opinion. Proving it is a
> different ball-game. What you'll do is convince yourself you are right
> and then become blind to any counter-argument.
I certainly try not to fixate on one model. I also try to predict some
effects and reason as to the limits of a model. Again multiplicity would
be nice in the theory.
The way you explained seems so much more complete.
> ‘There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
Lovelock, indeed. I should have caught that one. *cringe* *spasm*
*tourette's outburst* *cringe*
>> They swung to the other extreme. Theories do have a kind of shape and
>> inertia to them which tells whether they are appropriate or whether
>> they are 5th grade mineral and botanic science. You know memorize
>> memorize memorize.
>
> I agree, I've referred to the inertia of ideas myself in the past.
>
> ‘Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
> their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
> their having received it from some person who has their entire
> confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
> to get it out of their heads.’— Galileo Galilei
Well as I mentioned above, the aversion to multiplicity makes me so
nervous. Any con artist looking at a 2+ degree curve can pick two points
and draw a line and go "WARMINGK!". Aren't these scientists at least a
little ashamed at not offering at least 3, 4, or 5 points of reference,
perhaps even a few inflection points to really determine the behavior of
the system.
> The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here:
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> Any advance in science comes from individuals, never from the sheep, and
> through inertia, the acceptance of the theory (right or wrong) takes
> place after the individual's death when it has become part myth or
> legend with just a small element of truth. If the planet warms and cools
> from natural causes (as the ices age cycle shows) that's a good excuse
> for carbon taxes.
Worked for the solar eclipse scammers of yester-eon.
>The two degree agreement at Copenhagen is meaningless,
> the mean temperature won't budge until the ice melts as any schoolboy
> with a thermometer in a cup of ice standing on a radiator will tell you,
> and that's a simple experiment one can do in any home. So let's talk
> about money... give me some of yours to help me save the planet.
Please... Save the climateS <--- S, plural, many, not simple.
Androcles
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:27:23 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> The dividing line between intuition and faith is indistinct. If I heat
>> your spring to red heat and you then push down, what happens? It is no
>> longer elastic, it has become plastic, so your statement is not valid
>> under all circumstances. But I'll allow that in principle my changing
>> the circumstances could be construed as merely argumentative, that cause
>> (pushing on the spring) has the same effect (spring pushes back) every
>> time. Then it snows and Eurostar trains get water in the electrics and
>> stuck in the Chunnel so perhaps it's not so merely argumentative after
>> all.
>
> Not saying it was argumentative. I guess I find knowledge to come in
> layers. That is complex systems require analyzing more than just
> immediate side effects. Feedback loops are funny that way. Simple systems
> don't interfere with each other as much.
Yes, of course. The problem as I see it is it is necessary to simplify
in order to teach the fundamental principle involved, but then the
student has to later learn the complexity of physical systems.
> I just object to simplifying the Earth as one blob. The antagonism toward
> multiplicity really makes me nervous.
>
> Climates changing versus climate change, multiple regional consistent
> divergences from a stable normal behavior (whatever that is) vs global
> warming (whatever that isn't).
>
>>
>>
>>> I do not believe the climate merely gets warm or cold. If there's
>>> global warming we should be seeing longer winters and longer summers
>>> followed by short spring and fall completely devastating the
>>> agricultural cycle.
>>
>> Ok... that's your personal faith, your opinion. Proving it is a
>> different ball-game. What you'll do is convince yourself you are right
>> and then become blind to any counter-argument.
>
> I certainly try not to fixate on one model. I also try to predict some
> effects and reason as to the limits of a model. Again multiplicity would
> be nice in the theory.
>
The danger of multiplicity is exemplified in the O. J. Simpson trial.
Did he murder ? Yes or No? The answer was yes in the civil trial
and no in the criminal trial. The defence made a big issue of proof,
presented biochemical data that was down in the noise level
with amplified and spikey graphs; the jury was confused, not
being familiar with cruddy data. You've got the same with CO2,
it is 0.04% of atmosphere, that's 0.0004, yet it's the big issue.
Never mind that clouds can be seen and you feel cooler when
they hide the sun, making it obvious that the sunlight is reflect
back into space, never mind that it is cooler at night, make
a big deal out of a "greenhouse" effect as if the world had a
glass roof. Any CO2 effect, even if there is one, is totally
swamped by the water vapour effect.
> The way you explained seems so much more complete.
>
Thank you.
>> �There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
Ya like that, huh?
He's still around, now in his nineties.
I had considered supporting the whole "CO2 is bad, green is good"
argument on the basis that it makes more sense if it improves
technological efficiency - why waste energy unnecessarily? - but
honesty prevailed. I'd rather have double glazing and a clean little
boiler than a yule log blazing in the hearth with its smoking chimney
and ash to clean out. I really don't like stinking truck exhausts and
I'm all in favour of electric vehicles - better yet, computerised
electric rail transport moving food and goods automatically and
letting people have more leisure time. Yet they like to be busy,
so is any of it worthwhile?
>>> They swung to the other extreme. Theories do have a kind of shape and
>>> inertia to them which tells whether they are appropriate or whether
>>> they are 5th grade mineral and botanic science. You know memorize
>>> memorize memorize.
>>
>> I agree, I've referred to the inertia of ideas myself in the past.
>>
>> �Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
>> their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
>> their having received it from some person who has their entire
>> confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
>> to get it out of their heads.�� Galileo Galilei
>
> Well as I mentioned above, the aversion to multiplicity makes me so
> nervous. Any con artist looking at a 2+ degree curve can pick two points
> and draw a line and go "WARMINGK!". Aren't these scientists at least a
> little ashamed at not offering at least 3, 4, or 5 points of reference,
> perhaps even a few inflection points to really determine the behavior of
> the system.
Well, as I said above with OJ Simpson, data can be selected to
persuade; you can show people the squirrels among the leaves
of the trees and they'll miss seeing the forest. What's needed is
a balance.
>> The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here:
>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>>
>> Any advance in science comes from individuals, never from the sheep, and
>> through inertia, the acceptance of the theory (right or wrong) takes
>> place after the individual's death when it has become part myth or
>> legend with just a small element of truth. If the planet warms and cools
>> from natural causes (as the ices age cycle shows) that's a good excuse
>> for carbon taxes.
>
> Worked for the solar eclipse scammers of yester-eon.
>
>>The two degree agreement at Copenhagen is meaningless,
>> the mean temperature won't budge until the ice melts as any schoolboy
>> with a thermometer in a cup of ice standing on a radiator will tell you,
>> and that's a simple experiment one can do in any home. So let's talk
>> about money... give me some of yours to help me save the planet.
>
> Please... Save the climateS <--- S, plural, many, not simple.
I have no doubt the Sahara was once a lush green place at some
earlier time in its history. Why would anyone want to maintain it
the way it is today? Their concern is their rat-infested coastal
cities being flooded, they like what they know even if they tell
you they know what they like. If all the ice of Greenland melts,
let's go and live there.
Anti Vigilante
>>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Instead being unbiased which reduces scientists to well adjusted
simpletons, the goal should be that we are interested in what can do with
science but we should be indifferent toward and strictly in line with
facts.
Ok. So what would it take to design an experiment to disprove?
I can think of one:
You have a wheel turning with three strips of photoreactive material or
just something that can be burnt by a laser.
You then take three light sources, say lasers.
Callibration
First you turn on all the lasers by plugging them into one power strip
getting them into the same state. Then you unplug the power strip and
plug it in again while they fire at the stationary wheel.
Once you have a reasonable expectation of simultaneity, you move the
lasers a certain distance apart. This time you turn the wheel at various
speeds until you can guarantee that by the displacement of the burn line
you can show which one gets there first. This is to determine the minimum
rotational speed of the wheel to be able to tell the difference in the
material whether a burn line is displaced.
Naturally you could use a few methods of creating long enough paths so
the experiment can fit in the laboratory. But let's leave that to
improvements.
After calibrating you set the lasers each on a separate track. This time
you make sure they fire from the same distance to the turning wheel, but
obviously at different speeds.
If the burn lines are displaced then you have c+v. If they are not then
you have c.
You may have to do this in near vacuum because after absorption and re
emission by intervening gas atoms all bets are off.
Anyone up to this?
It's rather crude and could be MacGyvered a little but there you have it.
Other experiments can be done using three rotating screens with holes and
moving light sources. But then you would have to calibrate while
experimenting which is not really ideal.
Androcles
>>>> The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here:
>>>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> Instead being unbiased which reduces scientists to well adjusted
> simpletons, the goal should be that we are interested in what can do with
> science but we should be indifferent toward and strictly in line with
> facts.
>
reads.
> Ok. So what would it take to design an experiment to disprove?
>
You can neither prove nor disprove an axiom.
B meets A when A meets B, how could it be otherwise?
You haven't heard of Georges Sagnac, have you?
Intervening gas atoms be damned, all bets are back on again.
Rav1ng rabbit
Still the climate sensitivity factor is 0.75 K/(W/m^2). It is a positive
number, not a negative one. It was determined for the Earth's atmosphere
as is, and not an atmosphere without water. The IPCC AR4 report where
all forcings are summarized has a graph similar to this one:
http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/r/ra/radiative-forcings.svg.png
It turns out that the positive forcings simply win from the negative ones.
Anti Vigilante
I was suggesting that intervening gas atoms would erase the original
speed of light and ruin the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sagnac
Ok so that says it's the same regardless of the speed of the emitter.
BTW, that's a pretty good approach to this experiment.
I assumed you were saying the link at Bartleby represented inertia
because of people who say SOL = c. What do you find wrong there?
I tend to think of it as simply being a case of the photon being the
means of energy exchange, therefore no velocity can exceed the exchanger
itself.
Androcles
That's not the result found.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sagnac
>
> Ok so that says it's the same regardless of the speed of the emitter.
That's what a crank relativist who has heard of it wants you
to believe. Wackypedia is the crap anyone can write.
"as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same
laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good." -- Albert Einstein.
The equations of mechanics say the muzzle velocity of the bullet is added to
the velocty of the gun.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> BTW, that's a pretty good approach to this experiment.
>
> I assumed you were saying the link at Bartleby represented inertia
> because of people who say SOL = c. What do you find wrong there?
"The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the
Principle of Relativity"
(1920)
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c " -- 1905.
15 years and he's still not realised his hocus pocus is actually
incompatible, not "apparently".
>
> I tend to think of it as simply being a case of the photon being the
> means of energy exchange, therefore no velocity can exceed the exchanger
> itself.
You want a simple experiment?
Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's already
set
up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data.
Anti Vigilante
> Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's
> already set
> up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data.
Umm... hmm. That's interesting.
Except the Sun isn't moving away. We are. Therefore the velocity of light
should be the same in all directions. Ballistic relativity would say we
should measure a difference, but that's about it. Of course there is also
the galactic orbital velocity.
Uncle Al
>
> >>> The foremost classic example of inertia of thought is found here:
> >>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> Instead being unbiased which reduces scientists to well adjusted
> simpletons, the goal should be that we are interested in what can do with
> science but we should be indifferent toward and strictly in line with
> facts.
1) http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
2) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
3) idiot
Androcles
I said a long way off, not eight light minutes away.
By that I mean (say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time
for fast light to catch up with or pass slow light emitted earlier.
Create the model and see if it matches actual data.
The most you need is a computer and a program.
Would you like one?
Anti Vigilante
I would expect the recent past and the long gone past to get scrambled a
bit. Which would throw the universe into weirdness where old field values
act before new ones.
Anti Vigilante
> is a computer and a program.
> Would you like one?
Hmm you got source code?
Androcles
What will happen when weird data doesn't agree with your expectations?
The most you need is a computer and a program.
Wanna see the data?
Androcles
>> Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you need
>> is a computer and a program.
>> Would you like one?
>
> Hmm you got source code?
>
Better, I now have it on an Excel spreadsheet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
You want weird, you get weird. But its only weird to those that
don't understand it.
Bruce Richmond
>
> It turns out that the positive forcings simply win from the negative ones.
>
> Q
In your dreams. The forcings used in the models are guesses. You
have 20 different models using 20 different values for forcings. What
shows up as a negative forcing in one model shows up as a positive
forcing in another. They just keep adjusting them till they get what
they consider a reasonable result. Quit trying to pass off multiple
guess as science.
Anti Vigilante
I'm using OpenOffice. Can you give some detail on what the object is?
I do have one interesting idea:
How does c+v relate to propagation of changes in fields? Can these
surpass c as well? It might just be useful for propulsion.
And what's the story with the research Uncle Al linked to?
Androcles
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:10:52 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhgifu$5cu$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you need
>>>> is a computer and a program.
>>>> Would you like one?
>>>
>>> Hmm you got source code?
>>>
>>>
>> Better, I now have it on an Excel spreadsheet.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>>
>> You want weird, you get weird. But its only weird to those that don't
>> understand it.
>
> I'm using OpenOffice. Can you give some detail on what the object is?
>
not listening.
Repeat/
You want a simple experiment?
Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's already
set up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data.
It's already set up for you. All you have to do is INTERPRET the data.
I said a long way off, not eight light minutes away. By that I mean
(say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time for fast light to catch
it matches actual data. The most you need is a computer and a program.
Want me to say it in different words? Spell it out for you?
Ok, I will. Read carefully.
To test c+v you need a 'c' and a 'v'.
The 'c' you can get from the light, the 'v' you get from a moving
source of light coming toward you.
To repeat the test you need the source to move back again.
So if it moves in a circle you can see the effect of c+v.
Stars don't move in circles, they move in ellipses as discovered
by Kepler. So you need to model a Keplerian ellipse.
How much more detail do you want?
> I do have one interesting idea:
>
> How does c+v relate to propagation of changes in fields? Can these
> surpass c as well? It might just be useful for propulsion.
Learn to walk before you start running, old son.
You need to model a moving source of light that is a long way
away so that you can SEE what weird really is.
> And what's the story with the research Uncle Al linked to?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Schwartz wrote "c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it."
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
If the idiot Schwartz found it then <snip crap>, he is a bigot.
He has his head up his own arse while accusing others of that
very same condition.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Rav1ng rabbit
>>
>> Q
>
> In your dreams. The forcings used in the models are guesses. You
> have 20 different models using 20 different values for forcings. What
> shows up as a negative forcing in one model shows up as a positive
> forcing in another. They just keep adjusting them till they get what
> they consider a reasonable result. Quit trying to pass off multiple
> guess as science.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a reconstruction and
a prediction.
Anti Vigilante
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
> news:hhh10a$12u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:10:52 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>>
>>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hhgifu$5cu$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you
>>>>> need is a computer and a program.
>>>>> Would you like one?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm you got source code?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Better, I now have it on an Excel spreadsheet.
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>>>
>>> You want weird, you get weird. But its only weird to those that don't
>>> understand it.
>>
>> I'm using OpenOffice. Can you give some detail on what the object is?
>>
> I have, you've snipped it. You are so full of your own ideas you are
> not listening.
Woah. What I meant was OpenOffice isn't parsing the file right. The
graphs seem to be covering other text.
> Repeat/
> You want a simple experiment?
> Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's
> already set up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data. Move a
> source of light that is a long way off in an ELLIPSE. It's already set
> up for you. All you have to do is INTERPRET the data. I said a long way
> off, not eight light minutes away. By that I mean
> (say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time for fast light to
> catch up with or pass slow light emitted earlier. Create the model and
> see if it matches actual data. The most you need is a computer and a
> program.
> /end repeat.
What I was asking for is the name of the 30 light year object for which
you had the actual data.
> Want me to say it in different words? Spell it out for you? Ok, I will.
> Read carefully.
> To test c+v you need a 'c' and a 'v'. The 'c' you can get from the
> light, the 'v' you get from a moving source of light coming toward you.
> To repeat the test you need the source to move back again. So if it
> moves in a circle you can see the effect of c+v. Stars don't move in
> circles, they move in ellipses as discovered by Kepler. So you need to
> model a Keplerian ellipse.
Well that's the obvious part.
> How much more detail do you want?
The actual object in the sky that you compared to and the determination
of the velocity as you did it.
>> I do have one interesting idea:
>>
>> How does c+v relate to propagation of changes in fields? Can these
>> surpass c as well? It might just be useful for propulsion.
>
> Learn to walk before you start running, old son. You need to model a
> moving source of light that is a long way away so that you can SEE what
> weird really is.
I'm pretty good at visualizing results. And if fields do that, there's
some serious space theater that could be performed. You could for example
project a low intensity field into a region that is about to get fried by
a slower high intensity field.
I can see it as if it were in front of me. I just want to reproduce your
experiment.
I prefer to do it in javascript.
>
>
>> And what's the story with the research Uncle Al linked to?
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>
> Schwartz wrote "c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it."
> According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
> equation he wrote.
>
> If the idiot Schwartz found it then <snip crap>, he is a bigot. He has
> his head up his own arse while accusing others of that very same
> condition.
>
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/
img22.gif
>
>
> What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say the speed of light from A
> to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way
> is the same?
Gedankenfart?
I'm not about theory for its own sake (I am for discovery for its own
sake however) and often wonder why you never see theoretical physicists
making little children's toys that demonstrate their ideas. I mean show
the world not just the clique.
If Einstein was right, he was. If not so what other than woe is we to
have such a scientific establishment. What can the knowledge give us?
Can I get my flying car already?
Androcles
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:08:36 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhh10a$12u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:10:52 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hhgifu$5cu$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> Create the model and see if it matches actual data. The most you
>>>>>> need is a computer and a program.
>>>>>> Would you like one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm you got source code?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Better, I now have it on an Excel spreadsheet.
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>>>>
>>>> You want weird, you get weird. But its only weird to those that don't
>>>> understand it.
>>>
>>> I'm using OpenOffice. Can you give some detail on what the object is?
>>>
>> I have, you've snipped it. You are so full of your own ideas you are
>> not listening.
>
> graphs seem to be covering other text.
Ignore that if you can see the luminosity curve. I've set up three examples
in cell Q2, you can select 1,2 or 3. Remember to reset it to 0 to enter your
own data in cells K2 through O2.
>
>> Repeat/
>> You want a simple experiment?
>> Move a source of light that is a long way off in an ellipse. It's
>> already set up for you. All you have to do is interpret the data. Move a
>> source of light that is a long way off in an ELLIPSE. It's already set
>> up for you. All you have to do is INTERPRET the data. I said a long way
>> off, not eight light minutes away. By that I mean
>> (say) 30 light years. That leaves plenty of time for fast light to
>> catch up with or pass slow light emitted earlier. Create the model and
>> see if it matches actual data. The most you need is a computer and a
>> program.
>> /end repeat.
>
> What I was asking for is the name of the 30 light year object for which
> you had the actual data.
There are many more than one, and at many different distances.
Recognising why we see what we see is part of "science".
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of
natural phenomena.
For example, do pencils bend when you put them in water?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Do stars really puff up and down like blowfish?
Do stars really play peek-a-boo from behind "dark companions"?
Do stars really blow themselves to smithereens twice in three months?
>
>> Want me to say it in different words? Spell it out for you? Ok, I will.
>> Read carefully.
>> To test c+v you need a 'c' and a 'v'. The 'c' you can get from the
>> light, the 'v' you get from a moving source of light coming toward you.
>> To repeat the test you need the source to move back again. So if it
>> moves in a circle you can see the effect of c+v. Stars don't move in
>> circles, they move in ellipses as discovered by Kepler. So you need to
>> model a Keplerian ellipse.
>
> Well that's the obvious part.
>
>> How much more detail do you want?
>
> The actual object in the sky that you compared to and the determination
> of the velocity as you did it.
Here's a list:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
Want more?
http://tinyurl.com/y9qo8pd
Here's a nice one:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Look, it blew up twice in three months. Or did it?
Let's graph light speed. A simple distance/time chart.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
See the crossover as the fast light from later passes the slower
light from earlier?
But that can't be right, Einstein said the speed of light was c.
So the star must blow up twice, right?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" -- Einstein...
and he MEANT it.
It is intuitive to believe what you see, even if your intuition
isn't logical.
>>> I do have one interesting idea:
>>>
>>> How does c+v relate to propagation of changes in fields? Can these
>>> surpass c as well? It might just be useful for propulsion.
>>
>> Learn to walk before you start running, old son. You need to model a
>> moving source of light that is a long way away so that you can SEE what
>> weird really is.
>
> I'm pretty good at visualizing results. And if fields do that, there's
> some serious space theater that could be performed. You could for example
> project a low intensity field into a region that is about to get fried by
> a slower high intensity field.
>
> I can see it as if it were in front of me. I just want to reproduce your
> experiment.
>
> I prefer to do it in javascript.
That's fine, go ahead, you'll need Kepler's equation to create an ellipse
and a 3D rotation matrix to orient it. Kepler's equation is recursive.
You can find both at http://mathworld.wolfram.com
You'll also need a magnitude calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)
I cheated, I used a logarithmic graph courtesy of Microsoft Excel.
>>
>>
>>> And what's the story with the research Uncle Al linked to?
>>
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>>
>> Schwartz wrote "c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it."
>> According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
>> equation he wrote.
>>
>> If the idiot Schwartz found it then <snip crap>, he is a bigot. He has
>> his head up his own arse while accusing others of that very same
>> condition.
>>
>> Ref:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/
> img22.gif
>>
>>
>> What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say the speed of light from A
>> to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way
>> is the same?
>
> Gedankenfart?
>
The korrekt German form is "Gedankenfahrt", I believe. I could ask
mein Vater, but he's dead. Mein Mutter objected to him driving in bed.
(drive = fahrt)
> I'm not about theory for its own sake (I am for discovery for its own
> sake however) and often wonder why you never see theoretical physicists
> making little children's toys that demonstrate their ideas. I mean show
> the world not just the clique.
They prefer to wave their hands, pick their noses, don't know
which of Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what
you already know. Here's the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0
>
> If Einstein was right, he was. If not so what other than woe is we to
> have such a scientific establishment. What can the knowledge give us?
>
> Can I get my flying car already?
If you wish. Woe are we.
Anti Vigilante
> Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what you already
> know. Here's the proof:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0
Don't blame Lenny for the fact college students have no intuition about
falling rocks to begin with.
It was a cold rainy morning when I thought that if larger masses fell
faster then the atomic theory would cause them to explode or implode.
>
>> If Einstein was right, he was. If not so what other than woe is we to
>> have such a scientific establishment. What can the knowledge give us?
>>
>> Can I get my flying car already?
>
> If you wish. Woe are we.
--
BradGuth
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hhig4f$jv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:08:36 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> >>news:hhh10a$12u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:10:52 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
Follow the money. Truth simply doesn't pay.
Tell one big lie and make it stick with follow up lies, and you're set
for life. Controlling the mainstream media and get it published in
textbooks as matter of fact is essential to sustaining a given ruse.
Those in charge of promoting Einstein had this methodology polished to
a mirror finish, not that Einstein did have a functioning brain of his
own.
Keeping the village idiots dumbfounded is essential if planning on
getting paid to represent the best we have to offer. Same as not
legalizing and thereby regulating and receiving revenues via street
drugs, whereas instead we continually suffer the mostly negative
consequences which in one manner or another nicely employs more than a
million of us Americans, and for the most part pays very well, of
which obviously the other 299 million of us Americans get to
perpetually support this policy.
~ BG
Anti Vigilante
So why not start proving theories using simple toys and fund it by
encouraging creativity as well?
Androcles
>> They prefer to wave their hands, pick their noses, don't know which of
>> Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what you already
>> know. Here's the proof:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0
>
> Don't blame Lenny for the fact college students have no intuition about
> falling rocks to begin with.
>
say that, please, only I'm not quite convinced yet. Seeing a student make
him correct a sign causes me to say "Don't blame the college students
for the fact, the fact, the fact (excuse my stutter, Pinocchio's nose
grew but I get a write impediment) that Lenny has no intuition about
falling rocks to begin with."
> It was a cold rainy morning when I thought that if larger masses fell
> faster then the atomic theory would cause them to explode or implode.
Oh, and a touch higher, too... a little more finger movement... yes, I'm
almost there... I've got my conviction receptors turned all the way up,
giving my full attention to your every wave... err... word.
How about this toy? It's called an ornery.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Androcles
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
Next, some real science:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Anti Vigilante
> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
> is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
> Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our
> consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time
> Machine" - 1895.
Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the establishment,
the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill.
In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for time.
Imaginary numbers naturally function as tools for calculating rotations,
I would even say any exchange from one scalar to another. Since such an
exchange on a graph is an exchange in coordinates then wherever imaginary
portions appear you have a rate.
Time therefore is a self-imposed illusion. Minkowski space is nothing
more than a space of multiple objects confused into one. Time merely
compares one rate to another. Were it not for division we wouldn't know
what to do with it. Now don't take this as saying the Universe is a fixed
jigsaw puzzle. Hardly. But when referring to time one should give the
reference point.
Time is not a dimension at all. Space already contains the means of
allowing change. Space doesn't need time to change and evolve. We do.
What I really want to know is how do we explain or constrain the behavior
of so called virtual particles so we can know what really happens during
a collision. I'm even willing to accept that space is a something. Right
now I don't care where such a thing came from. And I don't mean the
aether.
Because ultimately there is only one nanoscopic entity interacting and
bouncing off copies of itself. There is only one particle in the true
unified theory theoreticians are chasing. Describe that sucker and your
name will one day end up on a Starbucks coffee mug a hundred years from
now.
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> --Einstein
>
> Next, some real science:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
I'm gonna play with that for a while. THX.
Like I said before, I don't care who's right or wrong, I just want to get
to Mars. And for that I have to join the lonely gliders of the dawn of
aviation. In terms of physics of course. NASA won't get my amateur bag of
water there.
Androcles
>> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
>> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
>> is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
>> Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our
>> consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time
>> Machine" - 1895.
>
> Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the establishment,
> the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill.
I was merely pointing out where Einstein stole his ideas from, I'm not
interested on your political views.
>
> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for time.
For what purpose?
> Imaginary numbers naturally function as tools for calculating rotations,
> I would even say any exchange from one scalar to another. Since such an
> exchange on a graph is an exchange in coordinates then wherever imaginary
> portions appear you have a rate.
> Time therefore is a self-imposed illusion.
Please wave your hands faster, I'm not quite getting it yet.
In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by m, for mass.
Imaginary numbers naturally function as tools for calculating rotations,
I would even say any exchange from one scalar to another. Since such an
exchange on a graph is an exchange in coordinates then wherever imaginary
portions appear you have a weight.
Mass is therefore is a self-imposed illusion.
> Minkowski space is nothing
> more than a space of multiple objects confused into one. Time merely
> compares one rate to another. Were it not for division we wouldn't know
> what to do with it. Now don't take this as saying the Universe is a fixed
> jigsaw puzzle. Hardly. But when referring to time one should give the
> reference point.
Wave your hands further from your body, you'll get to be a
theoretical physicist soon.
Minkowski mass-space is nothing more than a space of multiple objects
confused into one. Mass merely compares one weight to another.
Were it not for division we wouldn't know what to do with it.
Now don't take this as saying the Universe is a fixed jigsaw puzzle. Hardly.
But when referring to mass one should give the reference point.
>
> Time is not a dimension at all. Space already contains the means of
> allowing change. Space doesn't need time to change and evolve. We do.
Mass is not a dimension at all. Space already contains the means of
allowing change. Space doesn't need mass to change and evolve. We do.
> What I really want to know is how do we explain or constrain the behavior
> of so called virtual particles so we can know what really happens during
> a collision. I'm even willing to accept that space is a something. Right
> now I don't care where such a thing came from. And I don't mean the
> aether.
>
Wave your hands faster, scream and shout, spew all the nonsense
you can. Then you'll know.
I've heard enough, you are fuckin' deranged.
<snip crap>
BradGuth
Nice "real science" report.
~ BG
Anti Vigilante
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
> news:hhjb5q$v9v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
>>> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
>>> It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
>>> between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our
>>> consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The
>>> Time Machine" - 1895.
>>
>> Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the
>> establishment, the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill.
>
> I was merely pointing out where Einstein stole his ideas from, I'm not
> interested on your political views.
>
Fine. But in that case it's worse than I thought and a little suspicious.
>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for time.
>
> For what purpose?
Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/
time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or
V = ch/t * r + charge.
So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's 6
ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval is
probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by
sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess.
> Please wave your hands faster, I'm not quite getting it yet.
> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by m, for mass.
> Imaginary numbers naturally function as tools for calculating rotations,
> I would even say any exchange from one scalar to another. Since such an
> exchange on a graph is an exchange in coordinates then wherever
> imaginary portions appear you have a weight.
> Mass is therefore is a self-imposed illusion.
There is only position, change (velocity, acceleration), and structure
(forces/interactions). Mass, charge, can only be defined in terms of
these.
So I would bet mass is also just a useful quantity rather than a physical
feature. Charge is just a measurement of the tendency for a charged
particle to exert electric and magnetic force.
>> Minkowski space is nothing
>> more than a space of multiple objects confused into one. Time merely
>> compares one rate to another. Were it not for division we wouldn't know
>> what to do with it. Now don't take this as saying the Universe is a
>> fixed jigsaw puzzle. Hardly. But when referring to time one should give
>> the reference point.
>
> Wave your hands further from your body, you'll get to be a theoretical
> physicist soon.
Minkowski space, like the calculation of AC Voltage combines a value and
its change. That's why I say the imaginary part is a rate.
>> What I really want to know is how do we explain or constrain the
>> behavior of so called virtual particles so we can know what really
>> happens during a collision. I'm even willing to accept that space is a
>> something. Right now I don't care where such a thing came from. And I
>> don't mean the aether.
>>
> Wave your hands faster, scream and shout, spew all the nonsense you can.
> Then you'll know.
I'm trying to get rid of or at least tame the virtual particle concept
because if anything is handwavy, it's virtual photons and all their
ephemeral cousins.
> I've heard enough, you are fuckin' deranged. <snip crap>
Did I clear it up a bit?
Anti Vigilante
UNITS! UNITS! UNITS!
Sorry need more coffee. But you get the idea. In an equation involving
imaginary values immediate values (position) and rates (velocity) are
combined. The same goes if we take velocity and acceleration in a hybrid
unit.
Androcles
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:45:33 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhjb5q$v9v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
>>>> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
>>>> It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
>>>> between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our
>>>> consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The
>>>> Time Machine" - 1895.
>>>
>>> Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the
>>> establishment, the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out where Einstein stole his ideas from, I'm not
>> interested on your political views.
>>
>
> Fine. But in that case it's worse than I thought and a little suspicious.
In his own words:
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
We are not concerned with creativity, that's art or fiction.
I'm prosecuting him posthumously in world-wide Usenet for the crime
against humanity of fraud (not murder, we've already seen that done with
the Nazis and other political figures more recently taken to the Hague -- my
concern is with science).
You may be suspicious. I'm convinced he was a huckster.
>>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for time.
>>
>> For what purpose?
>
> Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/
> time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or
> V = ch/t * r + charge.
>
> So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's 6
> ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval is
> probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by
> sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess.
>
So mathematics can be used to model physical systems... big whoopee.
We've known that since Galileo Galilei.
Galileo is perhaps the first to clearly state that the laws of nature are
mathematical. In The Assayer he wrote "Philosophy is written in this grand
book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics, and its
characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures; ... ." His
mathematical analyses are a further development of a tradition employed by
late scholastic natural philosophers, which Galileo learned when he studied
philosophy.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
>> Please wave your hands faster, I'm not quite getting it yet.
>
>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by m, for mass.
>> Imaginary numbers naturally function as tools for calculating rotations,
>> I would even say any exchange from one scalar to another. Since such an
>> exchange on a graph is an exchange in coordinates then wherever
>> imaginary portions appear you have a weight.
>
>> Mass is therefore is a self-imposed illusion.
>
> There is only position, change (velocity, acceleration), and structure
> (forces/interactions). Mass, charge, can only be defined in terms of
> these.
Then define them in the those terms. I still don't know what mass or time
or charge are, I'm stuck with my own lousy intuition. If you can tell me
then
I'll pronounce you a philosopher and great teacher (and I'm not being
facetious
as I so often am - I really mean that). Temperature I can visualize as
kinetics,
but charge and mass? They are too much for me.
> So I would bet mass is also just a useful quantity rather than a physical
> feature. Charge is just a measurement of the tendency for a charged
> particle to exert electric and magnetic force.
I never guess and I don't bet - except on certainties or for fun on
horse races - and then only for for small stakes that I can easily
afford to lose.
The way we measure mass and charge is by force. What does that
tell you? It may be "just a measurement" but a measurement of what?
We all know a bigger mass on the bathroom scale pushes the spring
further, but what IS mass? And what is force? The Earth weighs
180 lbs in my gravitational field. It must be huge and needs to
go on a diet. And if I go on a diet I'll only reduce my gravity.
That's a grave thought.
>
>>> Minkowski space is nothing
>>> more than a space of multiple objects confused into one. Time merely
>>> compares one rate to another. Were it not for division we wouldn't know
>>> what to do with it. Now don't take this as saying the Universe is a
>>> fixed jigsaw puzzle. Hardly. But when referring to time one should give
>>> the reference point.
>>
>> Wave your hands further from your body, you'll get to be a theoretical
>> physicist soon.
>
> Minkowski space, like the calculation of AC Voltage combines a value and
> its change. That's why I say the imaginary part is a rate.
>
>>> What I really want to know is how do we explain or constrain the
>>> behavior of so called virtual particles so we can know what really
>>> happens during a collision. I'm even willing to accept that space is a
>>> something. Right now I don't care where such a thing came from. And I
>>> don't mean the aether.
>>>
>> Wave your hands faster, scream and shout, spew all the nonsense you can.
>> Then you'll know.
>
> I'm trying to get rid of or at least tame the virtual particle concept
> because if anything is handwavy, it's virtual photons and all their
> ephemeral cousins.
>
I'm not the one that introduced virtual particles into the discussion.
I discuss nature the way it is, not theoretical nature or virtual nature.
I'm a realist.
>> I've heard enough, you are fuckin' deranged. <snip crap>
>
> Did I clear it up a bit?
Unfortunately you've added more mud than water. I accept
that theoretical physicists are insane - most of humanity is.
Anyone that cuts the end of his dick off in the name of religion
has to be, and to do it to a new born child is grievous bodily
harm (GBH) for which nobody gets prosecuted.
Maybe ants are insane too, they bite their wings off but that
could be fear of flight or part of latent metamorphosis.
The library bookshelves are filled with fiction and we dream
when we sleep. Reality is for escaping from.
Androcles
to perihelion on Jan 3rd and then we can celebrate.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.php
(Not that I trust the US Naval Observatory to get it right, they think
perihelion wanders from year to year, but there has to be some marker)
Merry solstice and a happy new perihelion to you. Enjoy the caffeine.
Anti Vigilante
> a prediction.
>
> Q
They both involve a certain amount of absinthe.
Androcles
>> You don't seem to understand the difference between a reconstruction and
>> a prediction.
>>
>> Q
>
> They both involve a certain amount of absinthe.
As much as I'm detested by the Einstein dingleberries for my
biting castigation of their god, my local fish shop owner (Turkish)
gave me bottle of wine and wished me a Happy New Year yesterday
when I bought my supper. (hic).
I must be doing something right.
Anti Vigilante
As per my sig, I consider the enlightenment to be the restoration of a
priesthood over the scientific community. The Renaissance could have
continued another 300 years had the 'proles' been more interested in
knowledge.
So for him to be taking notes from the promoter of several murderous
ideologies makes me really wonder.
But as I said, figures are irrelevant beyond their aims. Knowledge is
available to all if we can just free it from habits and inflated
language. I for one prefer the term Inverse Tangential/Perpendicular
Pressure Velocity principle to Bernoulli's principle. I'm horrible with
names.
>>>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> For what purpose?
>>
>> Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/
>> time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or
>> V = ch/t * r + charge.
>>
>> So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's
>> 6 ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval
>> is probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed
>> by sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess.
>>
>>
> So mathematics can be used to model physical systems... big whoopee.
> We've known that since Galileo Galilei.
<snip juicy stuff>
> His mathematical
> analyses are a further development of a tradition employed by late
> scholastic natural philosophers, which Galileo learned when he studied
> philosophy.
What I'm saying is something that is presented as odd and weird, complex
numbers, actually have a real meaning. I would even guess (I know you
don't) that the fog over the use of complex numbers in Quantum Mechanics
can be dissolved if we try this idea.
> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
>
>
>> There is only position, change (velocity, acceleration), and structure
>> (forces/interactions). Mass, charge, can only be defined in terms of
>> these.
>
>
> Then define them in the those terms. I still don't know what mass or
> time or charge are, I'm stuck with my own lousy intuition. If you can
> tell me then
> I'll pronounce you a philosopher and great teacher (and I'm not being
> facetious
> as I so often am - I really mean that). Temperature I can visualize as
> kinetics,
> but charge and mass? They are too much for me.
They call to me. I can't but see them as arbitrary labels on something
far more fundamental.
>> So I would bet mass is also just a useful quantity rather than a
>> physical feature. Charge is just a measurement of the tendency for a
>> charged particle to exert electric and magnetic force.
>
> I never guess and I don't bet - except on certainties or for fun on
> horse races - and then only for for small stakes that I can easily
> afford to lose.
>
> The way we measure mass and charge is by force. What does that tell you?
> It may be "just a measurement" but a measurement of what? We all know a
> bigger mass on the bathroom scale pushes the spring further, but what IS
> mass? And what is force? The Earth weighs 180 lbs in my gravitational
> field. It must be huge and needs to go on a diet. And if I go on a diet
> I'll only reduce my gravity. That's a grave thought.
>
Well I'm trying to formulate what I call Unit Impulse Mechanics. I'll let
you know what I find.
>> I'm trying to get rid of or at least tame the virtual particle concept
>> because if anything is handwavy, it's virtual photons and all their
>> ephemeral cousins.
>>
> I'm not the one that introduced virtual particles into the discussion. I
> discuss nature the way it is, not theoretical nature or virtual nature.
> I'm a realist.
> Unfortunately you've added more mud than water. I accept that
> theoretical physicists are insane - most of humanity is.
Relativism is one step away from sanity and therefore so convincing in
philosophy and apparently science that it is also quite dangerous.
Nihilism <- Unitarism <- Materialism <- Relativism -> Realism
Abstractly,
Nihilism, 0, = 1 because it denies differences
Unitarism, 1, = 0 because it denies differences but is dishonest about it
Materialism, 2, devolves into 1 because it does not study the difference
it acknowledges
Relativism, 3, teeters on the edge because it considers all differences
equal in value
Realism, 4, considers context which is why it can stabilize and be
consistent
> Reality is for escaping from.
From dreams? That's almost an encouraging thought.
In another sense, dreams are fine. Fantasies are of the Devil.
Fantasizers are channel surfers who don't stick around when dreams start
to take hard work.
Androcles
> So for him to be taking notes from the promoter of several murderous
> ideologies makes me really wonder.
Ha, Glasshopper... perhaps it is wise to cut off a finger to save a hand --
Master Po.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)
> But as I said, figures are irrelevant beyond their aims. Knowledge is
> available to all if we can just free it from habits and inflated
> language. I for one prefer the term Inverse Tangential/Perpendicular
> Pressure Velocity principle to Bernoulli's principle. I'm horrible with
> names.
>
A rose by any other name would still stink.
>>>>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> For what purpose?
>>>
>>> Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/
>>> time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or
>>> V = ch/t * r + charge.
>>>
>>> So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's
>>> 6 ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval
>>> is probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed
>>> by sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess.
>>>
>>>
>> So mathematics can be used to model physical systems... big whoopee.
>> We've known that since Galileo Galilei.
>
> <snip juicy stuff>
>
>> His mathematical
>> analyses are a further development of a tradition employed by late
>> scholastic natural philosophers, which Galileo learned when he studied
>> philosophy.
>
> What I'm saying is something that is presented as odd and weird, complex
> numbers, actually have a real meaning. I would even guess (I know you
> don't) that the fog over the use of complex numbers in Quantum Mechanics
> can be dissolved if we try this idea.
>
When you can program a computer to use complex numbers
then you are their master.
Try this on for size, see if you like the colours:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Euler.xls
>> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
>>
>>
>>> There is only position, change (velocity, acceleration), and structure
>>> (forces/interactions). Mass, charge, can only be defined in terms of
>>> these.
>>
>>
>> Then define them in the those terms. I still don't know what mass or
>> time or charge are, I'm stuck with my own lousy intuition. If you can
>> tell me then
>> I'll pronounce you a philosopher and great teacher (and I'm not being
>> facetious
>> as I so often am - I really mean that). Temperature I can visualize as
>> kinetics,
>> but charge and mass? They are too much for me.
>
> They call to me. I can't but see them as arbitrary labels on something
> far more fundamental.
Tell me what it is. I see only force acting over a vacuum, but then... I'm
blind. You can lead, I am not yet a god.
You think this is easy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls
?
Try it.
All the questions are easy when you know the answers.
The really hard part is knowing what questions to ask.
Nightcrawler
> (Not that I trust the US Naval Observatory to get it right, they think
> perihelion wanders from year to year, but there has to be some marker)
This might help a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Androcles
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:v9Gdnb38yrMN4aDW...@giganews.com...
It says:
This page was last modified on 31 December 2009 at 05:44.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Not that I trust wackypedia to get it right, they think Nature is a
democracy and behaves according to popular opinion.
Anti Vigilante
He means the section called Perihelion Precession.
-----------
The orbit of a planet around the Sun is not really an ellipse but a
flower-petal shape because the major axis of each planet's elliptical
orbit also precesses within its orbital plane, partly in response to
perturbations in the form of the changing gravitational forces exerted by
other planets. This is called perihelion precession or apsidal precession.
Discrepancies between the observed perihelion precession rate of the
planet Mercury and that predicted by classical mechanics were prominent
among the forms of experimental evidence leading to the acceptance of
Einstein's Theory of Relativity (in particular, his General Theory of
Relativity), which accurately predicted the anomalies.[3][4]
These periodic changes of Earth's orbital parameters, combined with the
precession of the equinoxes and of the inclination of the Earth's axis on
its orbit, are an important part of the astronomical theory of ice ages.
See also nodal precession. For precession of the lunar orbit see lunar
precession.
-----------
Of course the notion that precession would put it on Jan 1st 0:00
including leap years is absurd.
Anti Vigilante
He means the section called Perihelion Precession.
-----------
The orbit of a planet around the Sun is not really an ellipse but a
flower-petal shape because the major axis of each planet's elliptical
orbit also precesses within its orbital plane, partly in response to
perturbations in the form of the changing gravitational forces exerted by
other planets. This is called perihelion precession or apsidal precession.
Discrepancies between the observed perihelion precession rate of the
planet Mercury and that predicted by classical mechanics were prominent
among the forms of experimental evidence leading to the acceptance of
Einstein's Theory of Relativity (in particular, his General Theory of
Relativity), which accurately predicted the anomalies.[3][4]
These periodic changes of Earth's orbital parameters, combined with the
precession of the equinoxes and of the inclination of the Earth's axis on
its orbit, are an important part of the astronomical theory of ice ages.
See also nodal precession. For precession of the lunar orbit see lunar
precession.
-----------
Of course the notion that precession would put it on Jan 1st 0:00
including leap years is absurd.
Androcles
A day is a degree, roughly. 365 days a year is why the circle was
divided into 360 degrees. So according to the web page purporting
to be from the USNO, perihelion wanders by up to 3 degrees from
one year to the next.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.php
I don't see anything in the wackypedia article that even approaches
a 1% variation, let alone account for it. Amusingly, Mighty dOG
(Owen Gwynne) suggested that perihelion is not where the Earth/Moon
barycentre crosses the major axis, but the actual closest approach
of the Earth to the Sun. I say amusingly because that would imply
two perihelia in one year when the Earth was further from the Sun
than the barycentre. It would be closer, move away at the major axis
and then become closer again.
I'm inclined to think the USNO is spewing crap from an erroneous
1970's computer program rather than taking observations.
Nightcrawler
> A day is a degree, roughly. 365 days a year is why the circle was
> divided into 360 degrees. So according to the web page purporting
> to be from the USNO, perihelion wanders by up to 3 degrees from
> one year to the next.
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.php
>
> I don't see anything in the wackypedia article that even approaches
> a 1% variation, let alone account for it. Amusingly, Mighty dOG
> (Owen Gwynne) suggested that perihelion is not where the Earth/Moon
> barycentre crosses the major axis, but the actual closest approach
> of the Earth to the Sun. I say amusingly because that would imply
> two perihelia in one year when the Earth was further from the Sun
> than the barycentre. It would be closer, move away at the major axis
> and then become closer again.
>
> I'm inclined to think the USNO is spewing crap from an erroneous
> 1970's computer program rather than taking observations.
I see that you need to graduate past Kepler.
Time for part two:
Anti Vigilante
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
> news:hhiujg$n8k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> They prefer to wave their hands, pick their noses, don't know which of
>>> Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what you already
>>> know. Here's the proof:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0
>>
>> Don't blame Lenny for the fact college students have no intuition about
>> falling rocks to begin with.
>>
> Could you wave your hands a little further from your body when you say
> that, please, only I'm not quite convinced yet. Seeing a student make
> him correct a sign causes me to say "Don't blame the college students
> for the fact, the fact, the fact (excuse my stutter, Pinocchio's nose
> grew but I get a write impediment) that Lenny has no intuition about
> falling rocks to begin with."
I suffer from severe symbolic arthritis. Too many terms on a line and
they fall off off the page. It's a functional impediment but not a
conceptual one.
I won't slight him for the sign. Hell my brain sometimes turns maps
upside down when I try to see them from memory.
But I will have an issue about things like the fact different masses fall
at the same rate from the same height.
>
>> It was a cold rainy morning when I thought that if larger masses fell
>> faster then the atomic theory would cause them to explode or implode.
>
> Oh, and a touch higher, too... a little more finger movement... yes, I'm
> almost there... I've got my conviction receptors turned all the way up,
> giving my full attention to your every wave... err... word.
Ok translation: To disprove the big mass fast drop hypothesis all you
need to do is imagine one mass as being made of 1/3 of the mass at the
top and 2/3 of the mass at the bottom. Naturally if lighter objects fell
slower, then your object would be stretched. Now vice versa if you
conceive of it as 2/3 on top and 1/3 on the bottom then it would be
compressed. The point is that often a mistaken claim can debunk itself if
one does some rough finite element analysis. The contradiction between
the two identical conceptions means that the hypothesis cannot be true.
This is the kind of multiplicity that does wonders.
> How about this toy? It's called an ornery.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Androcles
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:23:45 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhiujg$n8k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> They prefer to wave their hands, pick their noses, don't know which of
>>>> Newton's laws are which and bore you to tears with what you already
>>>> know. Here's the proof:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0
>>>
>>> Don't blame Lenny for the fact college students have no intuition about
>>> falling rocks to begin with.
>>>
>> Could you wave your hands a little further from your body when you say
>> that, please, only I'm not quite convinced yet. Seeing a student make
>> him correct a sign causes me to say "Don't blame the college students
>> for the fact, the fact, the fact (excuse my stutter, Pinocchio's nose
>> grew but I get a write impediment) that Lenny has no intuition about
>> falling rocks to begin with."
>
> I suffer from severe symbolic arthritis. Too many terms on a line and
> they fall off off the page. It's a functional impediment but not a
> conceptual one.
>
> I won't slight him for the sign. Hell my brain sometimes turns maps
> upside down when I try to see them from memory.
>
> But I will have an issue about things like the fact different masses fall
> at the same rate from the same height.
>
It all seems perfectly logical to me. You have a hammer and a feather
and an astronaut holding the Moon away from them with his feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
When he let's go, why should the Moon fall toward the hammer
faster than it falls toward the feather? How could it do that anyway?
The Earth weighs 180 lb in my gravitational field. It needs to exercise
more and eat less.
>>
>>> It was a cold rainy morning when I thought that if larger masses fell
>>> faster then the atomic theory would cause them to explode or implode.
>>
>> Oh, and a touch higher, too... a little more finger movement... yes, I'm
>> almost there... I've got my conviction receptors turned all the way up,
>> giving my full attention to your every wave... err... word.
>
> Ok translation: To disprove the big mass fast drop hypothesis all you
> need to do is imagine one mass as being made of 1/3 of the mass at the
> top and 2/3 of the mass at the bottom. Naturally if lighter objects fell
> slower, then your object would be stretched. Now vice versa if you
> conceive of it as 2/3 on top and 1/3 on the bottom then it would be
> compressed. The point is that often a mistaken claim can debunk itself if
> one does some rough finite element analysis. The contradiction between
> the two identical conceptions means that the hypothesis cannot be true.
>
> This is the kind of multiplicity that does wonders.
Sure. And the 2/3 has more inertia than the 1/3 so it needs 2/3
of the force applied to it. Anyone that has tried pushing a car
knows it is reluctant to move. He has hands-on experience of
inertia and knows "many hands make light work".
Ten people pushing one car will make it accelerate 20/3 times
faster than 2/3 of a person pushing.
That's why it needs a Polack to hold the bulb and two Irish
navvies to rotate the step ladder for a total of two people.
That's multiplicity of the word "light". Light bulbs are filled
with vacuum, that's what makes them light. If you sucked
the vacuum out the air would secretly slip back in, making it a
heavy bulb. Nobody has heard of the speed of heavy, that
would be the speed of dork.