geothermal energy
Gill Smith
free-lunch?
Androcles
"Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:jJGdndnwt81tDq7W...@brightview.co.uk...
jonnie
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:gAMYm.102411$QH6....@newsfe28.ams2...
access fee too, like drilling costs
Uncle Al
>
> anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised
> free-lunch?
It is a free lunch - government subsidies and public investment. Best
efforts, then either bankruptcy or impressed Enviro-taxes to fuel the
fraud. Be at the top of pyramide enjoying the view, not near the
bottom being crushed by the weight.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised
> free-lunch?
Geothermal power systems can only work as heat engines. That means
they transport heat from down below (where it's hot) to up here (where
it's cooler) through some machinery that can convert some of the heat
to usable energy on the way by.
But, it will unavoidably dump not only the converted heat that is
the "power supply" (just like in a generating station that burns
hydrocarbons) but also the unusable waste heat...
wait for it...
into the Environment!
Hence it will contribute to Global... er, ...Climate Change.
Eventually, somebody will explain this to the Greenies (using many
many very small words) and they'll crap their drawers.
Mark L. Fergerson
jmfbahciv
in it. You have to figure out a 3-word spin byte or slogan that
describes it all. Oh, and it has to rhyme so they can waste
all kinds of energy to get to earth spots and chant.
Good luck because you'll need a politician to help.
/BAH
purple
You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
truth, but misuses information in order to advance
their personal agenda.
There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
word is "Chaos."
In short, we can never know.
jmfbahciv
Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. The key to
getting something useful accomplished is to aim
your people's personal agendas in the same direction
which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>
> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
> word is "Chaos."
>
> In short, we can never know.
Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
/BAH
purple
> purple wrote:
>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
>> their personal agenda.
>
> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda.
Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth.
> The key to
> getting something useful accomplished is to aim
> your people's personal agendas in the same direction
> which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>
>>
>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
>> word is "Chaos."
>>
>> In short, we can never know.
>
> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
> the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate.
> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
jmfbahciv
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> purple wrote:
>
>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
>>> their personal agenda.
>>
>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda.
>
> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth.
Whose truth?
>
>> The key to
>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim
>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction
>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>>
>>>
>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
>>> word is "Chaos."
>>>
>>> In short, we can never know.
>>
>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
>
> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate.
I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete
that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond
of my time.
>
>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
>
> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
Such as?
/BAH
sometimers
> purple wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> purple wrote:
>>
>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
>>>> their personal agenda.
>>>
>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda.
>>
>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth.
>
> Whose truth?
Now you're just being picky.
>>> The key to
>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim
>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction
>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
>>>> word is "Chaos."
>>>>
>>>> In short, we can never know.
>>>
>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
>>
>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate.
>
> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete
> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond
> of my time.
The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered
responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours.
>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
>>
>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
>
> Such as?
I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning
for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That
being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos
is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory
originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather
in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns,
you're on your own, and knock yourself out.
purple
> purple wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> purple wrote:
>>
>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
>>>> their personal agenda.
>>>
>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda.
>>
>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth.
>
> Whose truth?
>
moment. This entire reply of yours has a sense of someone
who got out of the wrong side of the bed this fine Sunday
morning. I hope you're having a better day when you read
my reply.
>
>>
>>> The key to
>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim
>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction
>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
>>>> word is "Chaos."
>>>>
>>>> In short, we can never know.
>>>
>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
>>
>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate.
>
> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete
> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond
> of my time.
>
consider worth your while.
>>
>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
>>
>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
>
> Such as?
>
>
But if you want to stick to "creating patterns" feel free to
knock yourself out.
Gill Smith
news:hqjc07-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes
wow! didn't think of that one
I just can't get over the idea that geothermal energy is like thermal
aquifers
'draining' them is going to have consequences as dire as falling water
tables
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:hqjc07-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Gill Smith <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised
>>> free-lunch?
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
>>
>> You mean other than it causes earthquakes?
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes
>
> wow! didn't think of that one
>
> I just can't get over the idea that geothermal energy is like thermal
> aquifers
>
> 'draining' them is going to have consequences as dire as falling water
> tables
>
> --
> http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
lubes the faults, things start slipping, and you get earthquakes.
This has been known for decades but no one wants to acknowledge it since
geothermal energy is "green" and therefor couldn't possibly have undesired
side effects.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
> > purple wrote:
> >> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>> purple wrote:
>
> >>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
> >>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
> >>>> their personal agenda.
>
> >>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda.
>
> >> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth.
>
> > Whose truth?
>
> Now you're just being picky.
Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal*
agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths?
> >>> The key to
> >>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim
> >>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction
> >>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done.
>
> >>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are
> >>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
> >>>> word is "Chaos."
>
> >>>> In short, we can never know.
>
> >>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate
> >>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word?
>
> >> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate.
>
> > I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete
> > that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond
> > of my time.
>
> The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered
> responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours.
I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the
AGW "debate".
> >>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
>
> >> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
>
> > Such as?
>
> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning
> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That
> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos
> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory
> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather
> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns,
> you're on your own, and knock yourself out.
Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to
be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting
weather.
Mark L. Fergerson
Puppet_Sock
> free-lunch?
As others have mentioned, there are issues. But the big one is,
it will never produce any significant fraction of our energy needs.
The heat flux from inside the Earth is round about 75 kW/km^2.
That's an average, and it's not all that precise. Depending on who
does the measuring it can be higher or lower.
It's not evenly distributed, but concentrates at places where there
are things such as volcanoes, subduction zones, and so on.
In such places, it is possible to get some local good out of
geothermal.If you live near a volcano, or a hot spring, or a
geyzer, or some other volcanic type activity, you may be
able to get your house heated using it. Iceland does quite
well doing this. So does New Zealand. So do a few other spots.
But on a global level, it's not going to do much. Most places
get only 10 or 20 kW per square km. Or less. And you only
get a fraction of that as useful energy (electricity or whatever)
so you get maybe 5 kW per square km.
So, to replace a 1000 MW electrical power station, you would
need 100s of thousands of square km of collector. It seems
quite unlikely.
Socks
jmfbahciv
Thanks :-).
/BAH
purple
>
> Thanks :-).
>
Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has
this place come to?
_
The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it
comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure
weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing
basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant
numbers. Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't
progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions
for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer
term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're
maybe about 40% correct.
_
Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex
nonlinear dynamic systems. Just because the trigonometric
functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider
the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses
for them.
_
This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you
want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own,
and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
alien8er
> jmfbahciv wrote:
I note no actual response to this question.
> >>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning
> >>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas.
Nobody is "gunning for" you. A question was asked; why you would
take that as a personal attack is nonobvious.
> >>> That
> >>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos
> >>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory
> >>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather
> >>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns,
> >>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out.
What do you think Lorenz attractors *are*? They are diagrams of the
future states a system can evolve into.
> >> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to
> >> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting
> >> weather.
>
> It is useless for predicting the weather.
Nonsense. It's useless for predicting long-term changes (climate),
but it's becoming more and more useful for shorter periods (weather).
It makes much longer-range predictions than the previous linear
models.
What it's completely useless for is retrodicting proof to support
the claim that human activities are a significant factor in long-term
climate change.
> > Thanks :-).
Didn't mean to interrupt, but it does seem that an argument that
didn't need to exist was erupting.
> Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has
> this place come to?
I have no idea what your "understanding" of chaos theory may be, but
I am leading no-one astray. And for your information, you need not
worry about /BAH being gullible.
> The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it
> comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure
> weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing
> basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant
> numbers.
That is quite correct, but does not support your contention that
it's "useless" for predicting weather.
> Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't
> progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions
> for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer
> term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're
> maybe about 40% correct.
The existence of attractors in chaos theory are what makes it useful
for making predictions. A complex system like the Earth's atmosphere
can exist in many states, but not infinitely many. Which states it can
transition to from a given state are _limited_ by chaos theory. Trying
to predict the future behavior of the entire atmosphere is futile.
Small pieces of it are somewhat easier.
Forty years ago in Southern California the temperature couldn't be
predicted for three days out to within five degrees, and the
probability of precipitation was a complete crapshoot.
Currently the reliable range is about a week.
Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes.
> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex
> nonlinear dynamic systems.
Chaos theory is exactly about patterns. I ask you again; what do you
think Lorenz attractors *are*?
> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you
> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own,
> and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
You certainly are, if that's what you know of chaos theory.
Mark L. Fergerson
purple
>>>>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
>>>>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
>>>>>> Such as?
>
> I note no actual response to this question.
The famous Mark L. Fergerson lunacy rears its ugly head
once again.
>>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning
>>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas.
>
> Nobody is "gunning for" you. A question was asked; why you would
> take that as a personal attack is nonobvious.
Because I've observed BAH over a long period in sci.physics.
Non obvious eh? Lotsa luck with this one.
>>>>> That
>>>>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos
>>>>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory
>>>>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather
>>>>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns,
>>>>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out.
>
> What do you think Lorenz attractors *are*? They are diagrams of the
> future states a system can evolve into.
What do you think trigonometric functions are about? They are about
the future possibilities of whatever it is you're analyzing, no? No!
>>>> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to
>>>> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting
>>>> weather.
>> It is useless for predicting the weather.
>
> Nonsense. It's useless for predicting long-term changes (climate),
> but it's becoming more and more useful for shorter periods (weather).
>
> It makes much longer-range predictions than the previous linear
> models.
>
> What it's completely useless for is retrodicting proof to support
> the claim that human activities are a significant factor in long-term
> climate change.
You're now bringing a political issue in place of a vary basic and
essential math/science discussion.
>>> Thanks :-).
>
> Didn't mean to interrupt, but it does seem that an argument that
> didn't need to exist was erupting.
>
Your understanding has always been rather limited. You've jumped
in to champion BAH who has in so many ways, for so long a period,
been looking after her own interests.
>> Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has
>> this place come to?
>
> I have no idea what your "understanding" of chaos theory may be, but
> I am leading no-one astray.
I've told you what it is. Chaos theory is macroscopic where your
view is quite obviously microscopic.
> And for your information, you need not
> worry about /BAH being gullible.
Gullible, no. Why would you say such a thing?
>
>> The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it
>> comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure
>> weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing
>> basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant
>> numbers.
>
> That is quite correct, but does not support your contention that
> it's "useless" for predicting weather.
>
Of course it is. The only portions of weather we can predict
with some degree of accuracy appear to be more or less linear.
That's the short term weather of one week or less.
>> Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't
>> progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions
>> for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer
>> term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're
>> maybe about 40% correct.
>
> The existence of attractors in chaos theory are what makes it useful
> for making predictions. A complex system like the Earth's atmosphere
> can exist in many states, but not infinitely many.
Filling up space by going off track with "discussion"? Where
weather is concerned, Chaos theory attaches to real numbers
and their fallibility based on the natural limits resulting
from our inability to measure the actual initial conditions
with accuracy sufficient to long term accuracy. That infinite
variations are not possible is more the case, in studies we
undertake, than not. Just what is it you're bringing to the
discussion here?
> Which states it can
> transition to from a given state are _limited_ by chaos theory.
Transitions are not limited by theory, but by nature. Unfortunately I
find myself feeding into your side discussion. Like so many others
you lose sight of the discussion in making the theory drive nature
when theory is merely an attempt to describe natural events.
> Trying
> to predict the future behavior of the entire atmosphere is futile.
> Small pieces of it are somewhat easier.
You fail to understand Chaos theory at all. The entire purpose of
the original Lorenz paper on this topic was to discuss the reasons
for the impossibility of improving weather predictions based on
having more data because we can never get to the necessary depth.
Then we discovered, as an outgrowth, that most complex systems can
be similarly described.
>
> Forty years ago in Southern California the temperature couldn't be
> predicted for three days out to within five degrees, and the
> probability of precipitation was a complete crapshoot.
>
> Currently the reliable range is about a week.
>
> Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes.
Gawd you're thick. Do you think that all that's gone on in the
past 40 years is growth of Chaos theory? Do you also think that
weather prediction is a science rather than a combination of
science and art? I do.
Chaos theory is one of many tools. Chaos theory itself, and the
Lorenz attractors you hold in too high an esteem, have done nothing
to actually model and predict weather. Chaos has, instead, gone off
as a sub discipline with uses in many other fields of study.
>> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex
>> nonlinear dynamic systems.
>
> Chaos theory is exactly about patterns. I ask you again; what do you
> think Lorenz attractors *are*?
I'll will tell you again that Lorenz attractors are one tidbit of
the science, that Chaos is a study of complex nonlinear dynamic
systems. Of that study, attractors are a part, not the totality.
>> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you
>> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own,
>> and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
>
> You certainly are, if that's what you know of chaos theory.
Been looking in the mirror as you typed that line?
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Precisely the problem with this discussion, superficiality.
jmfbahciv
No. For taking the time to write the answer.
> What has
> this place come to?
You were either wrong or too focused on a detail when
you replied to my post about chaos theory studying
patterns.
> _
> The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it
> comes to chaotic systems.
So? What does that have to do with my comment about studying
patterns?
>Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure
> weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing
> basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant
> numbers. Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't
> progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions
> for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer
> term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're
> maybe about 40% correct.
> _
> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex
> nonlinear dynamic systems.
Which are patterns and not one, and only one, solution.
>Just because the trigonometric
> functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider
> the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses
> for them.
Those are repetitive patterns (I'm thinking in 2D now). They
become very interesting when the pattern changes. I'm now
thinking of scopes used to diagnose computer gear.
> _
> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you
> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own,
> and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
Oh, good. Now others can talk about interesting stuff.
/BAH
purple
> purple wrote:
>> What has
>> this place come to?
>
> You were either wrong or too focused on a detail when
> you replied to my post about chaos theory studying
> patterns.
Nope. You indicated exclusivity, which was incorrect.
>> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex
>> nonlinear dynamic systems.
>
> Which are patterns and not one, and only one, solution.
Really? Are you incorporating wrong solutions into the
realm, giving all solutions equal weight? Patterns can
be used to describe narrowly focused solutions derived
from a myrid of fuzzy input data. There are multiple
solutions when the input data is fuzzy. And *that* was
the point of the original Lorenz paper, and remains the
point of Chaos theory.
Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities
for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical
but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as
demonstrated by Lorenz.
>
>> Just because the trigonometric
>> functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider
>> the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses
>> for them.
>
> Those are repetitive patterns (I'm thinking in 2D now). They
> become very interesting when the pattern changes. I'm now
> thinking of scopes used to diagnose computer gear.
There you are, it is the differences that matter.
>> _
>> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you
>> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own,
>> and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
>
> Oh, good. Now others can talk about interesting stuff.
Has snideness become your hallmark?
Gill Smith
nuclear or nothing?
a side-serving of Mushroom Power (growing stuff in the dark)
enrol Asia's millions in pedal-power?
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
spudnik
every little bit counts; especially,
when you consider the visicitudes of the manufacture
of floating-point processors from the spec
(IEEE-755, -855;
the first is an article in Computer magazine, 1980 issue .-)
> Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities
> for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical
> but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as
> demonstrated by Lorenz.
thus:
garbage up; garbage back down. like I said,
Minkowski couldn't take-back his spiel
about phase-space.
thus:
in California, primarily the gangs constitute the only militia,
per the second amendment (you can look-up the case-law on that,
a digest re the Constitution on Lexis-Nexis, where
it is pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" includes
the wearing of long-sleeved shirts; likewise,
it exposes the liberal-media-owned-by-consWervatives silliness,
where they always confuse "separation of church & state"
with the foundational dysestablishmentarianism in A#1 -- yeah,
they really, always do that, cuz TJ said the six words !-)
so, what is this remarkable Madison/Marx patrimony,
that we exist under?... of course,
they were contemporaries, and Marx actually supported Henry Clay,
for a while, til he was subverted by The Veiled Librarian
at the British Library, in London. and, here,
you can look-up the past publications where this stuff was put,
in *The Campaigner* magazine (it is no-longer called that,
since the goment forced a bogus ch.13 bankruptcy on it, and
several other Larouchiac pubs.: http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners
)).
> I told her about the nutter web pages that keep posting bogus gun
> quotes attributed to the founders. All it takes is five seconds to
thus:
I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although
I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water
in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put
in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin
to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space"
-- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski-THEN-he-died --
and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss.
read it & sleep on the un-nullities of Michelson & Morley et al
(small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if
you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and,
we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz,
firstly, if also from "the" theory .-)
> > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the
> > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays
> > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally,
> > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of
> > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of
> > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the
> > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the
> > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides
> > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and
> > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most
> > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of
> > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to
> > > > within one per cent..."
> neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity,
> that proven by Einstein's say-so on DCMiller's article, at Caltech;
> fig. 3, belowsville, puts these results together in one picture. now,
> surfer's language may be peculiar but, so, is yours....
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
--l'OEuvre, http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off;
put a tariff on imported energy!
alie...@gmail.com
> alien8er wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 6:40 am, purple <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> >> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns.
> >>>>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns.
> >>>>>> Such as?
>
> > I note no actual response to this question.
>
> The famous Mark L. Fergerson lunacy rears its ugly head
> once again.
Nice hipshot there, asshat.
I tire of your hypocritical habit of accusing others of your own
behaviors. You accuse others of "gunning" for you while you eschew
discussion in favor of spewing vitriol.
You still have not answered the question, and obviously never will.
> >>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning
> >>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas.
It's blatantly obvious from your reliance on insults and your
confrontational, accusative tone that you're not interested in any
exchange of ideas.
I am uninterested in an exchange of insults, ao our interaction is
ended.
Now, go ahead and have the last word and consider yourself the
"winner".
Mark L. Fergerson
purple
The difference between a rational argument (with perhaps
some emotions involved) and talking to you is extreme. The
big difference is that while BAH was at one point gunning
it is clear that she's "got it" and we're just arguing,
perhaps for the sake of it.
In your case you've not got it and you never will, probably
never can. In this discussion with you there are no winners,
just one loser, you.
BAH, it is your turn to have your say in order to close out
this little subtopic if you feel the need. Do as you wish.
jmfbahciv
Not yet. I am becoming extremely cynical because I'm
encountering fewer and fewer people who want to learn.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
It's certainly beginning to look that way.
>
> a side-serving of Mushroom Power (growing stuff in the dark)
>
> enrol Asia's millions in pedal-power?
In case you haven't noticed, Asia's billions are going from
pedal power to petroleum power which is why the demand
is high.
/BAH
>
jmfbahciv
I've forgotten what I was trying to learn about. Patterns
are fascinating. I spent my lifetime trying to control
bit flows and bit patterns.
the only applications, where Chaos theory methods have been useful,
is in geology to find new pools of oil in spent wells.
/BAH
/BAH
purple
[...]
> I've forgotten what I was trying to learn about. Patterns
> are fascinating. I spent my lifetime trying to control
> bit flows and bit patterns.
>
> the only applications, where Chaos theory methods have been useful,
> is in geology to find new pools of oil in spent wells.
Disagree.
google chaos usefulness 519,999 hits
Edward Green
> >> On Dec 24, 8:16 am, "Gill Smith" <gill.smith....@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised
> >>> free-lunch?
>
> >> they transport heat from down below (where it's hot) to up here (where
> >> it's cooler) through some machinery that can convert some of the heat
> >> to usable energy on the way by.
>
> >> But, it will unavoidably dump not only the converted heat that is
> >> the "power supply" (just like in a generating station that burns
> >> hydrocarbons) but also the unusable waste heat...
>
> >> wait for it...
>
> >> into the Environment!
>
> >> Hence it will contribute to Global... er, ...Climate Change.
>
> >> Eventually, somebody will explain this to the Greenies (using many
> >> many very small words) and they'll crap their drawers.
>
> > They can't comprehend any explanation that has more than three words
> > in it. You have to figure out a 3-word spin byte or slogan that
> > describes it all. Oh, and it has to rhyme so they can waste
> > all kinds of energy to get to earth spots and chant.
>
> > Good luck because you'll need a politician to help.
>
> > /BAH
>
> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't
> truth, but misuses information in order to advance
> their personal agenda.
>
> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that
> word is "Chaos."
You mean, let me hazard a gloss, that in a chaotic system, one that in
particular is necessarily non-linear, one can never assign a definite
effect to any particular forcing, in general, other than to say "well,
it's different than it would have been otherwise".
You might also mean that, given that the climatic system is chaotic,
it will wander around phase space ("change") without any further
intervention, so it is meaningless to say "we are changing the
climate", at least if this conjures the image that we are changing the
climate from some steady state.
We are anyway conducting a massive de facto experiment with the
climate.
Edward Green
<...>
> The existence of attractors in chaos theory are what makes it useful
> for making predictions. A complex system like the Earth's atmosphere
> can exist in many states, but not infinitely many. Which states it can
> transition to from a given state are _limited_ by chaos theory. Trying
> to predict the future behavior of the entire atmosphere is futile.
> Small pieces of it are somewhat easier.
>
> Forty years ago in Southern California the temperature couldn't be
> predicted for three days out to within five degrees, and the
> probability of precipitation was a complete crapshoot.
>
> Currently the reliable range is about a week.
>
> Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes.
Thanks. I didn't know that. There is some useful signal around here
above the noise after all.
tg
But if you put energy into the system, you increase the potential for
excursions of the sub-systems. There *is* a steady state; climate *is*
the sub-systems and their variability. "State" is not necessarily
static.
-tg