John Cook: Skeptical Science *debunked*
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...
From: Roving rabbit on 6 Apr 2010 03:13 spudnik wrote: > the Skeptics were a Greek cult in the Roman Pantheon, > along with the Peripatetics, the Gnostics, the Solipsists etc. > ad vomitorium; as long as the Emperor was the Top doG, > you were left to your beliefs (including, of course, > Jesus -- after it became the state church). > >> A CO2 denier, or a climate denier is a very different kettle of >> pilchards. they came into this debate as pilchards and nothing would >> change their minds from thinking like a pilchard, however convincing >> it may be to the rest of the fish in the ocean. > > thus: > virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along > with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order -- > is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although > a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is, > historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization). > > I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with, > that *no* database shows "overall" warming -- > not that the climate is not changing, rapidly, > in the Anthropocene. > > thus: > nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering, > experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, > it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, > with a German thrown-in for "triality." > >> of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, >> via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- >> a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, >> "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," >> necessitated by "the vacuum." > > --Light: A History! > http://21stcenturysciencetech.com > > --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! > http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com > > thus: > Death to the lightcone -- > long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and, > the photon is *still* dead, > no matter what herr Albert said about it! > >>> <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of >>> Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee, >>> the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical >>> process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire," >>> has had several editions, the latter of which take pains >>> to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is >>> is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.>> > > thus: > as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit- > off > more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes; > and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large > manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I > mean, > just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be > affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?... > all of it, down to teh electronics etc. > > my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try* > to consider the theory of light using only waves, > which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad" > textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones. > > or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy > "theory," > nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway, > one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon > by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time; > once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g., > you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless > you're just learning it, for the first time! >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > thus: > a-ha, I was correct: > say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as > I comprehend, they generally split the "photon" > into "two photons" of half the energy, I think > of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although > the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon, > such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso* > with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified > in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think > of them as "rocks o'light." > it could have been worse; > lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of" > in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned, > that is this particualr question! >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > thus: > if you let go of the empty notion of "photon," > there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture. > Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because, > Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death). > yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering; > thank you, herr doktor-professor E., > for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory," > that Young had successfully popped! > > thus: > on the wayside, if > you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure > for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and > try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that > English is not your mother-tongue, > which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so, > that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase > *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English, > til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand > in translating the KJV of the Bible .-) > > thus: > The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should > be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is > at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One > must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last > hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also > under Waxman's House committee, and which, > after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S-- > the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary" > cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate, > a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme). > > Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ, > which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing, > more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh, > but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill > as "cap & tax!" > > Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why > would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially > considering that the oil companies have not bothered > to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use, > to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so, > guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway? > > Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think > that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora -- > all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them > to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be > related!) > > Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a) > nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen > into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some > folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly > achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility > for industry & infrastructure.) > > --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65 > (deadletter since March 27, 2000, > when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96)) You are wasting precious energy. Q -- Who is general failure and why does he need my attention?
From: josephus on 5 Apr 2010 09:56 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: > > >>"Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message > > > < snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, > much less science. > > >>That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ? >>Accuse others of what you commit yourself ? > > > I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr. > Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic. > > Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are not either data , evidece or theory. josephus -- ÿþI
From: josephus on 5 Apr 2010 09:59 spudnik wrote: > virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along > with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order -- > is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although > a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is, > historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization). > > I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with, > that *no* database shows "overall" warming -- > not that the climate is not changing, rapidly, > in the Anthropocene. > > thus: > nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering, > experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, > it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, > with a German thrown-in for "triality." > > >>of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, >>via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- >>a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, >>"the photon." well, and/or "the aether," >>necessitated by "the vacuum." > > > --Light: A History! > http://21stcenturysciencetech.com > > --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! > http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com > > thus: > Death to the lightcone -- > long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and, > the photon is *still* dead, > no matter what herr Albert said about it! > > >>><<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of >>>Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee, >>>the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical >>>process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire," >>>has had several editions, the latter of which take pains >>>to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is >>>is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.>> > > > thus: > as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit- > off > more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes; > and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large > manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I > mean, > just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be > affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?... > all of it, down to teh electronics etc. > > my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try* > to consider the theory of light using only waves, > which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad" > textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones. > > or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy > "theory," > nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway, > one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon > by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time; > once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g., > you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless > you're just learning it, for the first time! > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > > thus: > a-ha, I was correct: > say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as > I comprehend, they generally split the "photon" > into "two photons" of half the energy, I think > of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although > the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon, > such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso* > with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified > in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think > of them as "rocks o'light." > it could have been worse; > lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of" > in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned, > that is this particualr question! > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > thus: > if you let go of the empty notion of "photon," > there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture. > Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because, > Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death). > yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering; > thank you, herr doktor-professor E., > for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory," > that Young had successfully popped! > > thus: > on the wayside, if > you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure > for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and > try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that > English is not your mother-tongue, > which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so, > that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase > *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English, > til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand > in translating the KJV of the Bible .-) > > thus: > The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should > be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is > at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One > must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last > hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also > under Waxman's House committee, and which, > after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S-- > the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary" > cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate, > a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme). > > Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ, > which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing, > more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh, > but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill > as "cap & tax!" > > Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why > would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially > considering that the oil companies have not bothered > to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use, > to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so, > guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway? > > Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think > that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora -- > all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them > to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be > related!) > > Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a) > nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen > into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some > folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly > achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility > for industry & infrastructure.) > > --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65 > (deadletter since March 27, 2000, > when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96)) your humble idiot. look we know you are anti-science. think you are funny. you keep trootting out the same objections that creationsts do. "SCIENCE IS WRONG I HAVE PROOF" right so do you. josephus -- ÿþI
From: Bill Ward on 6 Apr 2010 12:10 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: >> >> >>>"Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message >> >> >> < snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, >> much less science. > >> >>>That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ? >>>Accuse others of what you commit yourself ? >> >> >> I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr. >> Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic. >> >> Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D > > idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are > not either data , evidece or theory. I realize you're new here, but there are proponents and skeptics. Proponents are supposed to, well, propose, a specific theory, then those that have questions about the theory (skeptics) ask them to explain the aspects that they think don't fit. At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause severe problems in the future. Unfortunately for the theory, but fortunately for humanity, the theory predicts only 0.6K of warming per century from CO2 at the present rate. Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they believe climate models, but don't understand them. Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled) that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for their hypothesis, or any other. The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically. If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose, there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default, regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it. That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I believe, trying to make an honest effort. Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of themselves and little else.
From: spudnik on 6 Apr 2010 13:42
cuaght me -- signing out! > You are wasting precious energy. thus: Newton's corpuscuar "theory" had that light "rays" went faster in a heavier medium. now, just because you (and he) can use "ray-tracing" or "geometrical optics," a la the brachistochrone, which really created "the caclulus" -- as opposed to Newton's -- should that mean that all of the properties of light, being wave-like, as shown by Young after a hundred years ... that you should hang-on to Newton's silly corpuscle? is it because Einstein got his Nobel for that entirely instrumental ("eV") quantification of lightwaves, the "photon?" why does "quantum" have ipso facto to mean "particulate?" how can a particle have no restmass?... well, it can if it is not a zero-D wave ("guidewave" per de Broglie/Bohm/ etc. as adumbrated by the Copenhagen joke-cat school) "for" the particle; why are the pioneer's fuzzy analogies so holy? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com http://21stcenturysciencetech.com http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com |