WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED
biject
until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
that has stifled real science. I know that in crypto one has little
chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
Which is why I went to compression but even here its impossible to get
papers for new things such as "a real bijective BWT". I worked in
government during the cold war I did not notice how corrupted science
was until the late 80's but here is a paper that shows how some of
the corruption as occurred in the sciences. Its written by a guy at
MIT. Maybe there are still a few nonpolitical correct professors there
but they are a dying breed.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Not sure how I stumbled on this. I was tyring to find out what is
going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"
Carl Taylor
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
> that has stifled real science.
I know what you mean. Recently I read Lee Smolin's book on string
theory, *The Trouble with Physics*, very depressing indeed. A whole
generation of young physicists with wasted careers. It's become what
John Horgan in his book, *The End of Science*, called "the woo-woo
stuff". Wall Street, Washington D.C., and Academia -- bedfellows all.
Carl Taylor
Thomas Richter
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is.
Now, what would be the alternative? The problem is that there *are* many
more publications, much more than 100 years ago, not at least because
many more people got access to a scientific education than 100 years ago.
> What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
> that has stifled real science.
Look, that depends on the field, for example in mathematical physics,
you could publish on xxx.lanl.gov (the Los Alamos preprint server)
without review. But then, such a publication in itself isn't worth a lot
since there hasn't been any quality control. And quality control means
review. And review also means that you need to get a name by knowing
people, and get known. The latter is the sad part, but many good
journals follow a blind review process (i.e. author and institution
names are blinded out).
It also means that somehow you need to know what's going on in your
research area, so yes, you have to read a lot, and you do have your
homework. It also means that you need to have an "angle" to shift the
research a little bit into the way you want to. (Mine is JPEG. I don't
have a big bunch of influence, much less than many other people, but I
can also see that one can make a difference. It *just* takes a *long*
time, and a long and steady engagement. But that goes for *any* job you
want to do seriously.)
> I know that in crypto one has little
> chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
Well, either you *are* elite and can cook up something from scratch, or
at least you need to speak the language of the people working in the
field to make yourself understood.
> Which is why I went to compression but even here its impossible to get
> papers for new things such as "a real bijective BWT".
I don't know how much you've written, and how much experience you have
in paper writing, but it is a long, stony road you must go to learn how
to write good papers. Read what you can find, think of *why* this
particular communication form has been chosen (yes, there is a reason),
go to conferences, and don't underestimate the social events. (-;
Talk to people.
Good conferences on compression (Not *exactly* my field, but close
enough): DCC (The data compression conference, in Utah, highly
recommendable). It is hard to get a paper through, but that also means
that you have lots of good papers to read in return, and don't be
disappointed if the first papers don't make it. You need to learn.
> I worked in
> government during the cold war I did not notice how corrupted science
> was until the late 80's but here is a paper that shows how some ofa
> the corruption as occurred in the sciences.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Nobody is
collecting money for getting a good review. Surely you're disappointed
because some paper didn't make it? Think a lot why that happened. Try to
take the reviewer seriously. Probably she or he has to say something,
and you can learn from it. Think about it - what are the alternatives?
> Not sure how I stumbled on this. I was tyring to find out what is
> going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
> it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
I don't know. I never worked for the NASA. (-; I'm not a rocket
scientist, you know. (-;
So long,
Thomas
Antony Clements
"Carl Taylor" <carlt...@att.net> wrote in message
news:PuNGk.63392$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I know what you mean. Recently I read Lee Smolin's book on string theory,
> *The Trouble with Physics*, very depressing indeed. A whole generation of
> young physicists with wasted careers. It's become what John Horgan in his
> book, *The End of Science*, called "the woo-woo stuff". Wall Street,
> Washington D.C., and Academia -- bedfellows all.
>
> Carl Taylor
it's not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it's that people dont
really do science for science sake anymore. it's all motivated the dollar
signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US science
is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our countries
economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it benefit our
dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of those 3 questions
you are more likely to get funding than if you cant answer either of those
questions well.
Thomas Richter
The short time question is rather "how is my department going to profit
from it". If you want to get a professorship, you need to bring in money
for the department, and if you don't, you're out. Same now also goes for
other states, not only the US, and there are also government programs
a department can apply for. In Europe, the European community also
offers funds for social affairs and research, and the German research
foundation (DFG) also offers (smaller) programs for research, so that's
not at all "only military" etc.
You are no longer able to do "just research", you need to have sponsors
to do that. Whether that's good or bad is disputable, it seems society
tries to identify the "value" of science by how well you are in
"marketing" your results - depending on your field, this is easier or
harder.
Unfortunately, the value of education you do as a professor is not
evaluated, which means that while your lectures might suck, you can
still get away with collecting money from industry. Sooner or later this
will have to change - it's hard to do here in Germany where university
is mostly free (or at least a *lot* cheaper than in the US) so students
cannot really support good teachers by visiting their lectures and thus
allow good professors to collect some money this way. On the other hand,
I wouldn't have been able to study with student fees myself, so I can
hardly argue for it.
I don't have a good solution for this problem, but it's a complex
problem to begin with. There's no silver bullet.
So long,
Thomas
Fibonacci Code
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
> that has stifled real science. I know that in crypto one has little
> chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
> Which is why I went to compression but even here its impossible to get
> papers for new things such as "a real bijective BWT". I worked in
> government during the cold war I did not notice how corrupted science
> was until the late 80's but here is a paper that shows how some of
> the corruption as occurred in the sciences. Its written by a guy at
> MIT. Maybe there are still a few nonpolitical correct professors there
> but they are a dying breed.
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
>
> Not sure how I stumbled on this. I was tyring to find out what is
> going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
> it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
>
> David A. Scott
> --
> My Crypto codehttp://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.ziphttp://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zipold version
> **TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
> Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
> made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
> As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
> system is only as strong as its weakest link"
If it is real, it can't be stop !
Regard,
Fibonacci
Unruh
>"Carl Taylor" <carlt...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:PuNGk.63392$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> I know what you mean. Recently I read Lee Smolin's book on string theory,
>> *The Trouble with Physics*, very depressing indeed. A whole generation of
>> young physicists with wasted careers. It's become what John Horgan in his
>> book, *The End of Science*, called "the woo-woo stuff". Wall Street,
>> Washington D.C., and Academia -- bedfellows all.
>>
>> Carl Taylor
Wasted careers? One of the features of physics is that what you learn in
field A can almost always be applied to field B. One of the hot topics in
"string theory" right now is the application of its techniques to nuclear
physics and superconductivity. And it is hardly surprizing that young
physicists want to be at the centre of the exciting happenings in science.
(Remember also tha Smolin is in a field in "competition" with string theory
as a theory of gravity. Neither has gotten terribly far, but arguably
string theory has gotten further.)
>it's not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it's that people dont
>really do science for science sake anymore. it's all motivated the dollar
>signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
>the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US science
>is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our countries
>economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it benefit our
>dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of those 3 questions
>you are more likely to get funding than if you cant answer either of those
>questions well.
Hardly applicable to string theory, or loop quantum gravity.
WTShaw
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
>
> I was tyring to find out what is
> going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
> it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
>
Factors that affect honesty, transparency, and basic freedoms in
regard to groups depend on tradition, state of the times, and the
leaders of those groups. This is true of all of them. Of particular
interest for seekers of truth and discovery is anything that gets in
the way of the search knowledge.
Crypto has attractive handles all though it as it is an attractive and
powerful area that many covet and/or want to protect according to
their own motives and prejudices. Science has many such fields, and
law is much the same. Often, if you know the loopholes and push with
zeal at the weaknesses of the relative logic involved by the so-called
establishment, you can make progress in spite of any attempts at prior
restraint.
Scott Fluhrer
"biject" <bijec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68cdc7b0-9a71-456e...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
> that has stifled real science. I know that in crypto one has little
> chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
Nope, in crypto, it's actually surprisingly easy. All you need to do is
publish a break on an existing crypto system. While bigger (e.g. AES, 3DES,
SHA-2, RSA, DH, ECC) would be best, lesser systems (e.g. Twofish, RC4, RC6,
NTRU, AHS candidates) would still serve this purpose. And, there's no
reason to restrict yourself to crypto primitives, cryptographical protocols
(e.g. TLS, sRTP, IPSec, SSH, WPA, WPA2) are also good candidates.
Look at the example of Ms. Wang; before she published her breaks on hash
functions, no one had heard of her. Now, she is considered one of the
elites in the crypto world.
Now, granted, finding a break in a crypto system (at least, one which lots
of other people have already examined) isn't easy. However, it's far from
impossible...
--
poncho
Unruh
Ah yes, but I think what they mean is that if they post their crypto
system the whole world does not rush over to embrace them, but rather keeps
criticizing them and pointing out flaws.
biject
> "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluh...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >"biject" <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually that's not what I meant since before when I worked for Sam
we did little crypto but work that was done no longer was judged on
merit. It was either blessed by people who had degree's in English
or Social Studies and managing was no longer run by PhD scientist or
engineers. I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
likely in the near future. Honest scientists who suggest looking at
real facts like the cooling trend are mostly ignored. Just look at
NASA its only political correctness that counts. We have learned
nothing from our last few big accidents and it will look as stupid as
ever when the facts about the global warming scare eventually come
out as bunk. I am some what saddened to have been associated with
NASA. At one time it was a proud think know its an embarrassment.
However as an example in crypto. Just look at bijective bit padding.
You can't get it on Wikpedia even though its excatly like the standard
bit padding except that some times its a block shorter and it is
bijective. But brain dead idiots can't seem to understand simple math.
Sportman
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science.
Real science didn’t stopped but is made hidden.
As soon a hobbyist, student or scientist discover something what is
important and new or already known to hidden science but not known to
our science that person is moved to the hidden science and traces
removed.
There is no communication between the top science we know and the
hidden much more advanced science what’s under secret probably global
government control. They have their own physics books and our study
books are mostly "Middle Ages" science compared to it.
Because it’s extreme secret I don’t know much about it, only that
after or during the secret Manhattan Project in World War II Roosevelt
or Truman started a new much more secret project what was finished
somewhere between 1950-1954. After that Bilderberg Group and NASA
where founded and I think Bilderberg Group for control and NASA as
cover-up for the hidden science started in that secret project.
The question is why all this hidden science, there are many theories
and leaks one of the most weird ones is told by Dr. Dan Burisch still
working as secret scientist. If there is only some percentage right of
what he tell in his video interview http://projectcamelot.org/dan_burisch.html
then we shall notice it quick enough. If there come more proof that
the financial system is controlled collapsed it has maybe something to
do with it.
Thomas Richter
> biject wrote:
>> I have long wondered what has happened to real science.
>
> Real science didn’t stopped but is made hidden.
??? Apparently, you never contributed to "real" science, because to make
a carrier in "real" science, you have to publish - which in return means
that the results *will* be available.
> As soon a hobbyist, student or scientist discover something what is
> important and new or already known to hidden science but not known to
> our science that person is moved to the hidden science and traces
> removed.
"How romantic", and what an utter nonsense. Please stay away with your
conspiracy theories, thank you. Otherwise, I can also prove you that
there is no city like Bielefeld - just a conspiracy of the German
government - or replace that by Pittsburgh in US if that matters for you...
So long,
Thomas
Thomas Richter
>
>> Ah yes, but I think what they mean is that if they post their crypto
>> system the whole world does not rush over to embrace them, but rather keeps
>> criticizing them and pointing out flaws.
>
> Actually that's not what I meant since before when I worked for Sam
> we did little crypto but work that was done no longer was judged on
> merit. It was either blessed by people who had degree's in English
> or Social Studies and managing was no longer run by PhD scientist or
> engineers. I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
> in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
> occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
> likely in the near future.
I question who's really the idiot here in first place - with all
necessary respect, I somehow doubt you have really all the insight to
judge that.
> Honest scientists who suggest looking at
> real facts like the cooling trend are mostly ignored.
And what makes *you* think to know the "real" facts, i.e. what do you
think qualifies you in particular to know better than others? I'm not a
climate expert in first place, but somehow I think I've at least a
degree in physics as background and a list of papers I read on it to
come to an opinion. What did you do to come to your conclusion in return?
> Just look at
> NASA its only political correctness that counts. We have learned
> nothing from our last few big accidents and it will look as stupid as
> ever when the facts about the global warming scare eventually come
> out as bunk. I am some what saddened to have been associated with
> NASA. At one time it was a proud think know its an embarrassment.
>
> However as an example in crypto. Just look at bijective bit padding.
> You can't get it on Wikpedia
By what means is that a qualification of "science"? If you want it
there, put it there - full stop. If you want to build a scientific
carreer on it, you should publish it and make it known to the right
people, and let them judge how worthful it is - don't ask me, I'm not
working in that particular field.
> even though its excatly like the standard
> bit padding except that some times its a block shorter and it is
> bijective. But brain dead idiots can't seem to understand simple math.
Who are the "brain dead idiots" you're talking about, in first place?
And how did you come to this conclusion?
So long,
Thomas
Antony Clements
"Unruh" <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:2yfHk.508$%%2.214@edtnps82...
>>it's not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it's that people dont
>>really do science for science sake anymore. it's all motivated the dollar
>>signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
>>the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US
>>science
>>is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our countries
>>economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it benefit our
>>dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of those 3
>>questions
>>you are more likely to get funding than if you cant answer either of those
>>questions well.
>
> Hardly applicable to string theory, or loop quantum gravity.
i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the possability,
however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a soldier could point a
device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it's inherant gravity on a quantum
scale, making said missile silo fall apart or collapse in on itself.
Antony Clements
"Unruh" <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
> Ah yes, but I think what they mean is that if they post their crypto
> system the whole world does not rush over to embrace them, but rather
> keeps
> criticizing them and pointing out flaws.
>
this is a point of perserverance, you keep trying til people can't point out
any more flaws. what bugs me is when peopel give up even pointing out flaws
in a system.
Antony Clements
> Actually that's not what I meant since before when I worked for Sam
> we did little crypto but work that was done no longer was judged on
> merit. It was either blessed by people who had degree's in English
> or Social Studies and managing was no longer run by PhD scientist or
> engineers. I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
> in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
> occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
> likely in the near future. Honest scientists who suggest looking at
> real facts like the cooling trend are mostly ignored. Just look at
> NASA its only political correctness that counts. We have learned
> nothing from our last few big accidents and it will look as stupid as
> ever when the facts about the global warming scare eventually come
> out as bunk. I am some what saddened to have been associated with
> NASA. At one time it was a proud think know its an embarrassment.
the two actually go hand in hand, the ocean heats up by a degree or two,
that melts the ice caps and does other funky things to the weather, which in
turn disrupt the ocean currents and WHAM welcome to an ice age, then there
will be a brief period of warming then another cooling before a big warming,
how do i know? because that's what the climatic history says happens after
every ice age. there is not going to be some massive increase in mean
temperature around the world, and carbon, no matter how many people tell you
otherwise, is not the culprit, but in fact it is methane and a few other
gases.
> However as an example in crypto. Just look at bijective bit padding.
> You can't get it on Wikpedia even though its excatly like the standard
> bit padding except that some times its a block shorter and it is
> bijective. But brain dead idiots can't seem to understand simple math.
i dont know enough about bijectiveness to touch that with a 50 foot pole
Sportman
> ??? Apparently, you never contributed to "real" science, because to make
> a carrier in "real" science, you have to publish - which in return means
> that the results *will* be available.
You give already my answer, what you shall do to track "forbidden
science"?
Publishing, patents other media like TV, radio, magazines, newspapers
and special Internet make it only easier to track and shutdown science
from the mainstream.
> "How romantic", and what an utter nonsense. Please stay away with your
> conspiracy theories, thank you. Otherwise, I can also prove you that
> there is no city like Bielefeld - just a conspiracy of the German
> government - or replace that by Pittsburgh in US if that matters for you...
Your reaction was so quick that you never could see the 4 hour video
or at least the first hour.
Sometime scientist come out and leak what's not a easy step for them
and in this case he was after the first leak even allowed to leak
again. Some serious intelligent people spend most of their time and
money to get it on tape and make it free available for all. it's to us
to believe something of it or ignore it. From my own experience I can
say that weird recorded stories can be true later.
Maybe you can find some proof yourself, go back in your own history
and think about some brilliant scientists or persons you knew or hear
about with not main stream ideas or discoveries and check what
happened with them.
Unruh
Unruh
As if everyone had time to just point out the next flaw in an idiotic
system.
George Johnson
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
[ painfully obvious trolling clipped ]
Golly Pollyanna, maybe you could create your own website and publish
your information unfiltered by any other human being on this thing they call
"THE INTERNET"?
If you want funding, then pay for a patent on your work and sell it to
the public.
If you cannot create compression code without funding, then you are a
dumbass who is UNWORTHY of funding.
It is not too hard to learn programming code (if you devote yourself to
the task) when you have a logical mind that can break a big problem into
many tiny problems. Just as the tape recorder and microphone destroyed many
aspiring impatient tone-deaf singers, so in turn the basic skills of
computer programming + math skills have destroyed many aspiring data
compression attention-whores.
George Johnson
news:gci379$903$1...@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de...
> Antony Clements wrote:
>> "Carl Taylor" <carlt...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:PuNGk.63392$Mh5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> I know what you mean. Recently I read Lee Smolin's book on string
>>> theory, *The Trouble with Physics*, very depressing indeed. A whole
>>> generation of young physicists with wasted careers. It's become what
>>> John Horgan in his book, *The End of Science*, called "the woo-woo
>>> stuff". Wall Street, Washington D.C., and Academia -- bedfellows all.
>>>
>>> Carl Taylor
>>
>> it's not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it's that people dont
>> really do science for science sake anymore. it's all motivated the dollar
>> signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
>> the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US
>> science is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our
>> countries economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it
>> benefit our dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of
>> those 3 questions you are more likely to get funding than if you cant
>> answer either of those questions well.
[clipped]
> Unfortunately, the value of education you do as a professor is not
> evaluated, which means that while your lectures might suck, you can still
> get away with collecting money from industry. Sooner or later this will
> have to change - it's hard to do here in Germany where university is
> mostly free (or at least a *lot* cheaper than in the US) so students
> cannot really support good teachers by visiting their lectures and thus
> allow good professors to collect some money this way. On the other hand, I
> wouldn't have been able to study with student fees myself, so I can hardly
> argue for it.
>
> I don't have a good solution for this problem, but it's a complex problem
> to begin with. There's no silver bullet.
>
> So long,
> Thomas
Actually the students of an incompetent worthless professor can indeed
sue that professor for academic fraud (failing to teach employable job
skills in their class) and the school for the return of the portion of their
tuition spent on promised education that the incompetent teacher failed to
provide.
The students need to document the instances (preferably with video and
clear audio) of the circumstances in which the professor lectured plus
quizzed on irrevealant topics. Incorrect grading (providing quizzes in
which the teacher's answers are obviously incorrect) and providing false
information would also provide proof of academic fraud.
There is an old saying, "What do you call a medical student that
graduated at the bottom percentile of their class? DOCTOR."
Quadibloc
> I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
> in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
> occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
> likely in the near future.
To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need to
know a few basic facts.
Pretty well everywhere on Earth, each day it gets warmer during the
day while the Sun shines. Then, at night, it gets cooler - instead of
staying the same, and getting warmer still the next day. Why does it
get cooler at night? Outer space doesn't come in contact with the
Earth through convection to take heat away.
No; it gets cooler at night because the Earth radiates into the
blackness of space.
Do you see the ground beneath you glowing? Is the Earth as hot as a
light bulb's filament, or the Sun's surface? No. So what the Earth is
radiating is long-wave infrared, appropriate to blackbody radiation
for its temperature.
Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.
This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It's
pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.
So here, at least, the ecology side isn't crying "Wolf". Anyways,
there's something called nuclear power which can produce all the
energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don't have to wait for absolute
proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
*without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
weaker.
John Savard
George Johnson
news:jjBHk.4459$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Actually, it is more than possible. The problem is that the basic
5th-directional (2-directional space is the center of a circle, a 2D being
could only spin in place and move in a vector direction) technology for
accomplishing this feat would require another 167 human years of
development. Our reality is in 3-directional spacetime (time being one
hyperspherical direction that we humans currently have no ability to
consciously alter) in which we can move in basically in weightless space in
3-directions at once. For example, we can spin on an axis like a basketball
in one exclusive rotational direction as a semi-solid object. We can also
move by displacement in a vector direction from any point in the center of
an infinite imaginary sphere. We can also tumble in yet another direction
(think of a spinning globe on a pivot and how you can pick up the globe and
rotate it around another axis spin while the globe itself remains spinning).
Note that the vector movement can move at one velocity, the spinning can
happen at another velocity, and the tumbling can happen at a completely
different velocity. The speed of this movement can be zero. The reason I
call this "directional space" is that when you move to a higher "direction",
you can move in a new way that no other creature or object can consciously
or physically do in the lower directional space. 4th-directional space = 4
directions (with a new directional vector angle range added plus the new
spin direction) of movement possible all at the same instance.
4th-directional space is pretty much similar in that you can move in a
vector direction from the center of an infinite imaginary hypersphere as
well as spin in place, tumble on another axis, and move through time vectors
on yet another axis as well as spin on the temporal axis. When a
higher-directional object pokes into our reality, it expresses itself as a
variety of effects depending on how it contacts our reality.
For example a pushpin shoved through a 2-directional reality would
cleave or compress any object contacting it. A 4-directional (hyper-space)
pushpin shoved through 3D reality would be mostly invulnerable to all 3D
matter, mostly invisible, and immobile by all beings in 3D reality. This
pushpin could be electrified or heated or spinning in place or vibrating
slightly. If something from 4D reality is pushing (but not penetrating)
into 3D spacetime, them it would appear as invisible forces (magnetism is an
easy example for any simpleton to comprehend). That 4D something can be
spinning while pushing into our reality which could also have other
secondary effects (a hot spot on the 4D object would temporally appear and
then disappear at a regular frequency). 5th-directional (quantum-space)
matter tends to express itself most commonly as photons (a 5-D particle
contacting our 3-D space) and gravity fields. As a photon pushes through
our spacetime it then appears as a waveform of temporary potential photons
which then collapse into real photons for a bit of time (for a fairly
inaccurate mental-picture description of how this works, think of a
beachball rolling across the surface of a calm lake, then a bird lands on
it, causing the beachball to sink into the water for a second and releasing
waves of motion into the lake, then the bird flies off, causing the
beachball to pop up (and sometimes for a second out of the lake and into the
air) which then reduces the penetration of the beachball "particle" (3D
object pretending to ba a 5D object) into "lake space" (2D liquid surface as
an example of 3D spacetime) back to a "wave-particle".
The other problem of using this is that without first creating stable 4D
objects the side-effects of using this technology unwisely is pretty bad.
Dangerously pretty bad, insanely horrifically, species-destroying,
world-cleaving, continent exploding BAD. Space is messy and untidy. So is
higher-directional space matter. It comes in all masses, all velocities,
all rotational speeds, a variety of thermal differences, differing periodic
tables (4D chemistry is not pretty to 3D creatures) and 6D lifeforms (some
6D bacteria eat potentialities thus collapsing the quantum-5D spacetime into
fewer potential reality divergences). Make yourself too known to 5D
lifeforms and they can find you very delicious.
This is the ultra-simplified version for the kindergarten-level readers,
so don't expect the complex math to be posted here.
Antony Clements
>>i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the
>>possability,
>>however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a soldier could point
>>a
>>device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it's inherant gravity on a
>>quantum
>>scale, making said missile silo fall apart or collapse in on itself.
>
> Horseshit.
who says it's not theoretically possible, to manipulate gravity on the
quantum level?
Antony Clements
"Unruh" <unruh...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
> As if everyone had time to just point out the next flaw in an idiotic
> system.
not all systems are idiotic, and no i'm not referring to any of my systems
Antony Clements
"George Johnson" <matr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ybMHk.10646$jX5....@newsfe08.iad...
> Actually the students of an incompetent worthless professor can indeed
> sue that professor for academic fraud (failing to teach employable job
> skills in their class) and the school for the return of the portion of
> their tuition spent on promised education that the incompetent teacher
> failed to provide.
what about todays 'modern' comp sci classes which teach java as the core
language? why? because it's popular... yet almost entirely worthless outside
of web development. can't be sued for lack of skills, it's just almost
entirely unsuited for the task. i read an article recently about a professor
of comp sci at i think it was NYU, who also runs a company that programs in
ADA, he said when he going through resume's the first thing he looks for is
what language they are most proficient in, the ones that say Java meet the
trash can straight off, he doesnt even bother reading them.
> The students need to document the instances (preferably with video and
> clear audio) of the circumstances in which the professor lectured plus
> quizzed on irrevealant topics. Incorrect grading (providing quizzes in
> which the teacher's answers are obviously incorrect) and providing false
> information would also provide proof of academic fraud.
what about those professors who dont do that but instead adhere to a useless
cirriculum?
Antony Clements
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
> therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
> at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
> it has gone up.
actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the atmosphere,
it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the amazon is not
in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years since the
harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less than 13% has
been cleared. that's about 0.43% per year. so it is as i said, carbon is the
least of our worries, it's methane and other gases that are the real
culprits.
> This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It's
> pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.
not hard to get wrong that the climate is changing, very easy to get wrong
the causes.
> So here, at least, the ecology side isn't crying "Wolf". Anyways,
> there's something called nuclear power which can produce all the
> energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
> the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don't have to wait for absolute
> proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
> *without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
> weaker.
they are doing both and neither. they say help us stop global warming, you
cant, it's a natural process. they say stop dumping carbon into the
atmosphere, carbon has an almost nil effect on the atmosphere. the reason
why they concentrate on carbon is because it's easier to do something about.
i say why bother, the effect is negligable. granted we do need more
sustainable energy options, but that doesnt change the fact that
'ecologist's and particularly the groups that spring up around them, employ
scare tactics quite often. they go off half cocked and listen to one person
who says one thing in a doomsday kind of way when there are a half dozen
people who say almost the exact opposite.
i've eevn said this directly to various ecologist activists, and they just
sit there twiddling their thumbs cause they dont actually have a clue what's
going on, they just see a cause and want to be a part of something.
Antony Clements
> actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
> better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
> the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
> did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
> going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the
> atmosphere, it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the
> amazon is not in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years
> since the harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less
> than 13% has been cleared. that's about 0.43% per year. so it is as i
> said, carbon is the least of our worries, it's methane and other gases
> that are the real culprits.
minor error... the Amazon has only been harvested for 30 years, not 70
Unruh
Unruh
Your assumption was that many flaws had already been pointed out in that
system and the person came back with his next itteration, and was ignored
and noone bothered pointing yet another flaw.
Unruh
>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:90e96906-aa9b-494b...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
>> therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
>> at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
>> it has gone up.
>actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
>better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
>the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
>did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
>going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the atmosphere,
>it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the amazon is not
>in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years since the
>harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less than 13% has
>been cleared. that's about 0.43% per year. so it is as i said, carbon is the
>least of our worries, it's methane and other gases that are the real
>culprits.
The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
The answer is yes.
Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
is no.
>> This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It's
>> pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.
>not hard to get wrong that the climate is changing, very easy to get wrong
>the causes.
>> So here, at least, the ecology side isn't crying "Wolf". Anyways,
>> there's something called nuclear power which can produce all the
>> energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
>> the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don't have to wait for absolute
>> proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
>> *without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
>> weaker.
>they are doing both and neither. they say help us stop global warming, you
>cant, it's a natural process. they say stop dumping carbon into the
>atmosphere, carbon has an almost nil effect on the atmosphere. the reason
False-- and it is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Carbon in the
atmosphere does have nill effect. Carbon dioxide does not (Look at the IR
absorption spectrum of CO2)
Sportman
wrote:
> what about todays 'modern' comp sci classes which teach java as the core
> language? why? because it's popular... yet almost entirely worthless outside
> of web development.
Is C# and PHP not also popular? Are desktop applications not becoming
web applications?
Good some still stick to Basic, maybe you can use this:
Dim byteIn As Byte = 255
Dim bits1and8 As Byte = 0
Dim bits2to7 As Byte = 0
bits1and8 = (byteIn >> 7) + (byteIn << 7 >> 7)
bits2to7 = byteIn << 1 >> 2
biject
>
> The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
> the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
> the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
> Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
> The answer is yes.
The fact is if global warming was occurring an ice free north pole
might be
a giood thing. But the fact is a cool period is comming you may not be
aware
of it since its politically incorrect to tell the truth. In fact water
vapor is a
better green house gas than CO2. I take it you were to lazy to read
the
paper I referenced. The sun has more effect on climate than the man
made source of CO2 thats a fact. The sun is more quiiet now then since
we started the space age. NASA being politically correct wrongly
thought
cycle 24 would have lots of sunspots. The experts that said NASA was
wrong could not get there paper published since it goes agains GORE
and he is a GOD. A false GOD but none the less the herd follows him
and to get published you have to play the game.
> Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
> risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
> is no.
>
Quick let's burn the methane to keep warm
Antony Clements
>>who says it's not theoretically possible, to manipulate gravity on the
>>quantum level?
>
> Me.
there are 2 here who would disagree with you that i't impossible to
manipulate a gravitational field. think of it this way, if we could somehow
figure out how to change a baryon into a hadron, you've manipulated the
field on a quantum level. in theory it can be done, just re-arrange the
quarks that make up each. in practice on the other hand, is a completely
different matter and we are at least 200 years away from having such precise
particle physics.
Antony Clements
> Your assumption was that many flaws had already been pointed out in that
> system and the person came back with his next itteration, and was ignored
> and noone bothered pointing yet another flaw.
>
it's no assumption, it happens.
Antony Clements
> The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
> the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
every major climate scientist you could possibly name disagrees with you on
that point. several world authorities on the subject have come out and
publicly said it's complete crap, leave the plants alone and things will
balance out.
> the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
no one is disputing that. every time there is a major thaw in the ice sheets
around the world there is an increase in CO2, big deal it proves nothing. as
i said, the effects of the industrial revolution on the atmosphere are
negligable, it's been shown several times.
> Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse
> blanket?
> The answer is yes.
it can, does it? no. because there would need to be a 15 fold increase in
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to have a significant effect.
> Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
> risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
> is no.
no, just every time you or any other animal release intestinal gas, or
disturb a methyl hydrate deposits on the continental shelf due to
exploratory drilling.
> False-- and it is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Carbon in the
> atmosphere does have nill effect. Carbon dioxide does not (Look at the IR
> absorption spectrum of CO2)
ok, let me put it a different way... oxygen absorbs IR, carbon absorbs it
better, so yes airborne carbon does have an effect, i am not disputing that.
but the effect is >ALMOST< nil.
Antony Clements
"Sportman" <spor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f87aeaf4-9c13-4193...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Is C# and PHP not also popular? Are desktop applications not becoming
> web applications?
it appears that C, in any variant, or PHP are not as popular. there are
quite a few things you can do in C++ that you can do in Java, small
applications and such, but when it comes to, as i read it 'mission critical'
coding, java doesn't stand a chance. you will NEVER find java outside of web
based applications, and by web based i dont mean the WWW, i mean web
browsers. you will NEVER find mission critical software written in Java
because it as a language is entirely unsuited and in many cases completely
incapable of doing some things. for example, you will NEVER find an air
traffic control system written in Java, or the OS in an aircraft, they are,
in this day and age, written in ADA. granted it MIGHT have a Java front end,
but the guts are always written in something that is more stable and more
efficient and in general more powerful.
WTShaw
wrote:
> "Sportman" <sport...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As one who is not bound to a single language, appropriate choice of
one for a specified use can be very important. For web use for
instance, the gui is important. On a cut and pate basis, javascript
is handy for email. You can do some tremendous things with it. On
the other hand, a compiled one might be just the thing, especially if
that was all you knew.
Different programing languages can be somewhat equivalent and that
debate means whatever you want to experiment in will tend to be in
your current choice. There were once very few choices, like a
suitable assembly, forgo(a primitive fortran), and due to bookkeeper
bewilderment...cobol. Be glad you now have better choices.
Antony Clements
news:535cf96f-c0c7-4f71...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> As one who is not bound to a single language, appropriate choice of
> one for a specified use can be very important. For web use for
> instance, the gui is important. On a cut and pate basis, javascript
> is handy for email. You can do some tremendous things with it. On
> the other hand, a compiled one might be just the thing, especially if
> that was all you knew.
yes you can do some tremendous things, but it still doesnt negate the fact
that for many things a particular language is just not suitable irrespective
of the capabilities. and for other things, some languages just arent capable
of doing what you need to do, like Java. you wouldn't write a device driver
in Java, because Java just does not have the capabilities that are required,
and even if it did, it would not be suitable anyway.
David Eather
IIRC, there is only 30 years worth of fissionable uranium (at current
world power levels) and most of that uranium is in Australia.
Plutonium, if required, can be more abundant and provide another 70
years of power. A world wide shift to nuclear power also has the
problem of getting some of the lunatic states that much closer to
fission/fusion weapons and delivers dirty weapon capability in gift wrapping
and the objections to *that* from
> the ecology crowd _are_ bunk.
I agree. There are no technical reasons (my personal choice would be
very deep sea dumping). I just don't trust business and governments when
short cuts make more profit. Which I think is a justified position
given the worlds collective histories.
So we don't have to wait for absolute
> proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
> *without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
> weaker.
>
> John Savard
IMO, since it seems to be impossible for society to actually reduce
overall energy consumption per person, and no combination of alternative
energy sources will replace a sufficient percentage of power to stop
global warming, (this is premised on some records of global warming
showing a constant rise in temperature starting in the 1950's i.e. the
environment could not cope with carbon emissions at the 1950's levels),
this leaves the only workable solutions as those that include population
reduction. (by passive, humane methods of course!)
A sad state of affairs I think.
David Eather
> On Oct 10, 6:28 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
>> the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
>> the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
>> Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
>> The answer is yes.
>
> The fact is if global warming was occurring an ice free north pole
> might be
> a giood thing. But the fact is a cool period is comming you may not be
> aware
> of
???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide
- none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink.
When it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat
without melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the
rate of temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the
ice caps may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated
temperature variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range
experienced will increase.
Some or even much of the arable land will cease to be productive and
this could happen in a very short space of time. The nightmare scenario
is the possibility of 6 billion people and enough food for only 2 billion.
Antony Clements
"David Eather" <eat...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:Gq6dnfnrq6NW623V...@supernews.com...
> ???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
> the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide -
> none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink. When
> it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat without
> melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the rate of
> temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the ice caps
> may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated temperature
> variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range experienced
> will increase.
it's also been shown through correlative evidence that the cycles of the sun
determine the mean temperature of the earth. the mean temperature rises a
few degrees which melts enough polar and glacial ice which interupts the
currents thus throwing everyone into an ice age that lasts for a few
centuries. it can't be stopped, it is a natural process. once enough cold
water is dumped into the deep sea currents we will experience an ice age, it
does not have to be a particularly big difference, a few degrees C is enough
to trigger the event. in fact, every climatologist you could possibly name
has said that in the next 50 to 100 years we will be in an ice age, not a
sauna. are we having an effect? yes we are. will it happen regwardless of
human intervention? yes it will. the whole 'reduce your carbon emissions'
thing is just a push for more sustainable energy sources. which i am all
for, but there is still no need to push the panic button about global
warming.
biject
> ???? You are aware that both polar caps are melting and disappearing at
> the fastest rate in history and the same is true of glaciers world wide
> - none are "growing". You also know that ice acts as a big heatsink.
> When it was ice it was colder than 0 degrees C, and it absorbed heat
> without melting until it reached 0 degrees. After the ice is gone the
> rate of temperature rise will increase a little more. Additionally, the
> ice caps may be responsible for the deep sea currents that moderated
> temperature variability. With the icecaps gone, the temperature range
> experienced will increase.
>
> Some or even much of the arable land will cease to be productive and
> this could happen in a very short space of time. The nightmare scenario
> is the possibility of 6 billion people and enough food for only 2 billion.
Actually the climate is getting colder the warming trend is over
which is sad the world would be more suitable for mankind if the poles
did melt. But its not going to happen in the near future since the
world is cooling. It's not surprising you would think warming is still
going on since that's the mantra you need to publish now a days but it
a cooling trend we are in. In fact the cooling is at a record rate.
But that does not stop the hype about global warming. The cooling is
what will hurt crop yields,
Its the GORE lies that even have NASA science going backwards. There
is no room there to have honest discussions.
John E. Hadstate
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
John Savard
Thank you, John. Since everything you've said has been
well-understood since at least the middle 50s, and since we
have subsequently done nothing except make the situation worse
by choosing to follow people who are more ignorant and more
stupid than dirt, do you really have any hope that we will make
the right choices in the near future?
Allow me just one question. If we can build nuclear power
plants that are safe enough and reliable enough to be operated
by a 17-year-old (the US Navy has been doing this for at least
four decades), then what is the problem with shore-based
nuclear power? Obviously, there is an agenda at work here to
which I'm not privy.
John E. Hadstate
"Antony Clements" <antony....@bigpond.com> wrote in
message news:inQHk.4628$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> news:90e96906-aa9b-494b...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks,
>> and is
>> therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the
>> Earth radiates
>> at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has
>> been, and
>> it has gone up.
>
> actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air
> makes for better plant growth, the more plant growth the less
> carbon in the air. so the industrial revolution didnt do much
> for the atmosphere at all, but it did do wonders for the
> rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
> going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in
> the atmosphere,
That's typical of the half-assed babbling that is passed-off as
science. Man can and does build machines to stomp out the
increased growth in plant matter much faster than their growth
rate can increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Mower
What Savard said is scientific fact. It cannot be "debunked"
without changing the laws of physics and chemistry. You have
now demonstrated that you are utterly ignorant in at least
three areas of basic science. That qualifies you to be a
"Leader of the Free World" and demands that your opinions be
vomited-forth on Oprah.
biject
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:90e96906-aa9b-494b...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need
> to know a few basic facts.
>
What about the shills for GORE??
> Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and
> is therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the
> Earth radiates at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be
> measured, it has been, and it has gone up.
>
> This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science.
> It's pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance
> around it. So here, at least, the ecology side isn't crying
> "Wolf".
>
But the sad truth is that this is less than half the picture. For
years I have had to argue about bijective compression methods since
many people take a few simple facts and then there brain shuts down.
Real science is not being done since all discussion in this area is
under control of the hordes who think global warming is such a fact
that other views are not even allowed to make it into the main stream.
The same thing happens in more and more areas of science. We are in a
cooling trend that is fact. The ice cap did not melt as much as people
hoped we are in for a long cold winter. And NASA is lead by those that
have such narrow close minded views that real science can't be openly
done there. Political correctness touches all and destroys ones
ability to think,
>
> John Savard
>
> Thank you, John. Since everything you've said has been
> well-understood since at least the middle 50s, and since we
> have subsequently done nothing except make the situation worse
> by choosing to follow people who are more ignorant and more
> stupid than dirt, do you really have any hope that we will make
> the right choices in the near future?
>
You got this one right. Sadly though the media government the Noble
people are following the wrong people.
> Allow me just one question. If we can build nuclear power
> plants that are safe enough and reliable enough to be operated
> by a 17-year-old (the US Navy has been doing this for at least
> four decades), then what is the problem with shore-based
> nuclear power? Obviously, there is an agenda at work here to
> which I'm not privy.
Ah the NAVY. It was a great place. I knew Dr. Miles and Cold Fusion
or a simalar process could be the answer. But the Navy following the
hordes that said Pons and the other guy could not have found anything
ended it. But I trust Dr, Miles there is something there but no real
science is done in this important area.
Thomas Richter
>
> Its the GORE lies that even have NASA science going backwards. There
> is no room there to have honest discussions.
Indeed. This is comp.compression, you're OT, there's no room here for
*any* discussion about this topic, let it be honest, or dishonest.
So long,
Thomas
Antony Clements
"John E. Hadstate" <jh11...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nd2dndxV1KQdOW3V...@supernews.com...
> That's typical of the half-assed babbling that is passed-off as science.
> Man can and does build machines to stomp out the increased growth in plant
> matter much faster than their growth rate can increase.
who said they didnt? but if you actually listen to the climatologists, they
will tell you that the level of carbon in the atmosphere, particularly
around old growth rain forest, is stable. it is simply this, cold weather =
more carbon trapped in ice = small more dense groth rings on a tree. warmer
weather = less carbon dioxide trapped in ice sheets = larger growth rings on
trees. it's been proven. what do plants do? take carbon dioxide, strip the
carbon release the oxygen. the older and healthier the plant, the more
efficient the process. it is as simple as that. the fact is, we will be in
an ice age before atmospheric carbon levels have reached a dangerous level.
>> Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
>> it has gone up.
yes carbon levels can be monitored, in and around healthy forest, it has NOT
gone up. so yes it HAS been debunked.
jacko
> I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn't
> until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
> gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
> papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
> that has stifled real science. I know that in crypto one has little
> chance of making a break through unless connected to the elites.
> Which is why I went to compression but even here its impossible to get
> papers for new things such as "a real bijective BWT". I worked in
> government during the cold war I did not notice how corrupted science
> was until the late 80's but here is a paper that shows how some of
> the corruption as occurred in the sciences. Its written by a guy at
> MIT. Maybe there are still a few nonpolitical correct professors there
> but they are a dying breed.
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
>
> Not sure how I stumbled on this. I was tyring to find out what is
> going on with the sun and why is NASA so full of it. When at one time
> it was an honor to say I worked at NASA. Now its no honor.
>
> David A. Scott
> --
> My Crypto codehttp://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.ziphttp://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zipold version
> **TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
> Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
> made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
> As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
> system is only as strong as its weakest link"
Paper on Uncertain Geometry Available as an example
Hi
http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
Accept adult warning which has not been switchd off yet, download
attatchment at bottom of page.
Free for electronic personal use, and printing or reproduction beyond
a personal copy is 10 pounds UK sterling. You may pay this if requied
on the download page.
cheers
jacko
biject
I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
the MOON again.
Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
the topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
Unruh
> Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
>I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
>was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
>that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
>the MOON again.
> Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
>in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
>real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
>correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
>the topic?
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an obviously
biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to do
in the UK than in the US.
Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the earth
radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
biject
> biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
> >I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
> >was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
> >that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
> >the MOON again.
> > Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
> >in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
> >real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
> >correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
> >the topic?
>
> The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an obviously
> biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
> openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
> about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to do
> in the UK than in the US.
>
> Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
> conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
> atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the earth
> radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
> in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
>
> >Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
> >David A. Scott
>
>
I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
published. Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
allow that. I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked. I
suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
But there are many things the left has ignored. The role of sunspots
in weather seems to be one of then and the fact that the climate is
getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
of the poles. The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
the economy. It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
food shortage in near future.
I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
Unruh
>On Nov 16, 11:05=A0am, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Sorry I changed name of thread from "WHY HAS REAL SCIENCE STOPPED"
>> >I am also sorry I worked at NASA. It was once a real organization that
>> >was honest and tried to advance science. I don't think NASA we ever be
>> >that again. I don't think it will ever get men to MARS let alone to
>> >the MOON again.
>> > Did anyone notice how NASA claimed October the coldest October ever
>> >in recent times? Is there any way to get Dr Hanson replaced with a
>> >real scientist? Do we really want those who believe in the politically
>> >correct god of global warming to filter and adjust all information on
>> >the topic?
>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=3D/opinion/2008/11/16.=
>..
>>
>> The allegation is true is obviously not good, but this article is also an=
> obviously
>> biased reportage. In case you did not know, reportage in the UK is
>> openly biased. It is one of the charms of British newpapers if you know
>> about it, but believing everything you read is an even riskier thing to d=
>o
>> in the UK than in the US.
>>
>> Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
>> conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
>> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
>> atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the ear=
>th
>> radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
>> in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
>>
>> >Will this make the front page in the U.S.?
>> >David A. Scott
>>
>>
> I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
>no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
>published. Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
>allow that. I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked. I
>suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
Left? What has this to do with left-right? Many papers are not published.
It is the scientific refereeing process. While it may have its problems, it
is still a good way of making sure that the journals are not innundated
with garbage.
> A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
?? So what?
> B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
>currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
And is there a correlation between its height and the global temperature?
And so what if plants need it? We are not talking about plants but the
effect on global temperature. (and the evidence on plants is ambiguous-- as
I recall, plants grew more, but also were more fragile under high CO2
conditions)
> C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
I see. But not too lazy to post that others are dishonest who have bothered
to look it up.
> But there are many things the left has ignored. The role of sunspots
>in weather seems to be one of then and the fact that the climate is
>getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
>of the poles. The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
>the economy. It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
>food shortage in near future.
Of couse it is silly to turn corn into fuel, not least because it takes
more fuel to make the corn and turn it into fuel than you get out of the
corn. It was one of your right wingers-- the president of the USA-- who
grabbed onto that looney idea.
> I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
>touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
??? We should listen to Bush instead?
Or to you who is "too lazy to look it up"?
Thomas Richter
> I think the most important part of the conspiracy is the left allows
> no debate on the subject many scientists can't even get papers
> published.
A) Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I can certainly get
papers published, had them published in the past, and will get them
published in the future. Apparently, you don't know what a scientific
paper is about? It is about giving verify-able claims.
B) What has this to do with comp.compression? Please move this elsewhere.
> Several have wanted to debate Gore yet the left refuses to
> allow that.
A) Who had?
B) Why does someone need allowance to publish a paper? I certainly never
did (except from my accounting, to get the money for it.)
C) What has this to do with comp.compression?
> I think its a bad sign that science has been hijacked.
A) What does the term "hijack" mean here? Scientists will do science,
you cannot hijack a concept.
B) Why do you think that happend?
C) What has this to do with comp.compression?
> I suspect you don't care since the ends justify the means.
A) Unless you show evidence that - whatever it is you claim that has
happened - has happened, there is nothing to care about.
B) What has this to do with compression?
> A) C02 is a greenhouse gas not sure its as effective as water vapor.
A) Why does that matter? Water is and has always been part of the
atmosphere, though the amount of CO2 has increased notably. Higher
temperature means also more water, so this part of the dynamics is
self-enforcing.
B) What has this to do with compression?
>
> B) It has often been much higher than it is currently. Yes it may be
> currently on the rise plants need CO2 that could be a good thing.
A) This is incorrect. Plants evolved to make use of the current CO2
level, not a higher one - they would work less efficient. See for
example "Scientific American", an issue about two years old. I could
look this up "but I'm too lazy".
B) What has this to do with compression?
> C) I don't know and to lazy to look up.
A) Yeah, right, then probably that's the reason why you cannot publish
papers. Science means also giving references.
> But there are many things the left has ignored.
A) So do you. You do not know half the things that you ought to know to
allow you making claims in this area. Neither do I, but I do not make
claims. So either, give references and publish, or go away.
B) How is that related to compression?
> The role of sunspots
> in weather seems to be one of then
A) What evidence exists that the current observable warming correlates
better to the sunspots than to the CO2 level?
B) What makes you think this is related to compression?
> and the fact that the climate is
> getting colder and that an ice age would do more damage than a melting
> of the poles.
A) Why do you think that this is a fact as the temperatures currently
rise? It's a speculation, not a fact, possibly a hypothesis, but facts
become facts when you measure them. You haven't measured that. Besides,
you're confusing the time scales. Long-time climate changes like
ice-ages happen in longer time scales than the current warming, which
appeared incredibly quick.
B) How's that related to compression?
> The left is using the fear of global warming to destroy
> the economy.
A) No, the population on this planet.
B) That's somehow related to compression (no mankind,no compression),
but I doubt this link is relevant enough to make you waste bandwidth.
> It is silly to turn corn into fuel when there could be a
> food shortage in near future.
A) Probably, but apparently it makes sense right now, otherwise it
wouldn't happen. Whether that's good or bad is another decision which
depends on the long-term perspective.
B) And it is still not related to compression.
> I think history has shown politicians mess up almost everything they
> touch. If they ignored Gores advice we would all be better off.
A) I doubt you would make a better politician. You're also playing the
same bad game in the same bad way. Claiming unproved hypothesis, leaving
proves out, not giving references. That's not science either, it is bad
arguing. So what makes you think people should listen to you instead of
Gore? I doubt he's a scientist, either, though he seems to be more in
line with the current results of science than you are.
B) And this is still not related to compression.
From all that I can only draw the conclusion that you should post this
elsewhere, or even better, not post at all. Because it shouldn't go
here, it's not about compression, and probably nowhere else, but that's
not me who has to judge it.
Thomas
Antony Clements
> Anyway, wondering which part of physics you believe is part of the
> conspiracy? A) Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased. B)
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making the
> atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the
> earth
> radiates into space). C) The sun delivers its heat to the earth primarily
> in the visible where the atmosphere is rather transparent.
I'm just wondering
"B) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (ie it absorbs IR radiation making
the atmosphere more opaque at the wavelengths at which the surface of the
earth radiates into space)."
Wouldn't that work both ways? By that I mean wouldn't IR wavelengths be
reflected back towards earth, and IR wavelengths coming from extra-planetary
sources, be reflected back into space?