1

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 10/03/2016 14:57:47 »

But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.

False. I don't know how many times I have to say this. When they say, "97% of climate scientists agree," that means not just liberal Democrat scientists in the U.S. The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.

On a more personal note, if you can't figure out the relationship between applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels and a rise in global temperatures, you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.

Furthermore, scientists operate using what we call the "Scientific Method." That method was adopted to get the politics, religion and personal feelings out of science. You're basically calling all these people liars, hundreds of thousands of people, accusing them of ignoring the scientific method, the very foundation of their occupation. Maybe you're projecting your own lack of integrity on others ??

Do you work for an oil company ??

If I ignore facts and make stupid arguments, can I be a Global Moderator too ??

Here's another quick point. You and I can't agree, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in this forum and at physforum.com spends every single day telling everyone else that they are completely wrong about absolutely everything. Think about that. Now, you really expect me to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists of different ethnicities, nationalities and political beliefs in countries all around the world are able to agree 97% on ANYTHING AT ALL, let alone work together to advance an agenda

Give me a break. That alone rules out the idea that climate change is a hoax.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: TheBox on black holes

« on: 07/03/2016 15:39:32 »

And that relates to mathematical ability how?

Those are my math tutors. I started reading Peter Fong's book on QM a couple of years ago, and it had way too many complex equations for me to understand. I have a college degree, but never took Calculus. So, I worked my way through a Precalculus book recently, and now I have a used copy of Calculus Early Transcendentals from the US Military Acadamy. I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

3

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: How does oil extraction affect the mass of Earth's crust?

« on: 14/11/2015 18:10:42 »

Actually, there is a slight decrease in the Earth's mass.

Einstein's famous equation Ε = mc˛ describes the relationship between mass and energy. The mass of a single atom might be very small, but the c in that equation is the speed of light squared, or 300,000 kilometers per second times 300,000 kilometers per second. So, the number you're talking about is the mass of the atom times 90 billion.

To put this into perspective, think about what a particle accelerator does, which is basically working the opposite way. In that case, you take two protons, for instance, total mass of those protons combined is very low, but then they accelerate them to speeds approaching 300,000 kilometers per second and collide them. Even then, they can barely "create" "heavy" particles with mass out of protons colliding at high speed despite the tremendous amount of kinetic energy added by two protons moving at that speed.

At any rate, whenever energy is "created" by some sort of process to fuel some sort of process or activity, there is a loss in mass, but since the speed of light squared is such a huge number, the actual mass lost is negligible. It's sort of like burning a log. If you could gather together all the ashes, evaporated water, soot particles that floated away, etc, and collect them back together, you would nearly equal the mass you had previously, but some of it would have escaped and dissipated as photons, energy that was helping to hold all that stuff together as mass, energy that was originally incorporated into those molecules when the tree built it out of soil and water using photons.

At any rate, without doing any math, just guesstimating, I would say you could probably burn a trillion tons of coal and that would only amount to a few grams of lost mass, or something like that, not enough to throw off most chemists' observations of processes involving trillions of molecules.

Of course, one might argue that photons are massless, but that's only when they are travelling through space as "free energy." When they are bound to a system, as they are in energy-containing molecules used for fuel, they do indeed contribute to mass.

All this stuff is generally known as Mass-Energy Equivalence, other related specific concepts would be Binding Energy, Combustion, and Photosynthesis.