1

The Environment / Re: Can carbon dioxide raise atmospheric temperatures by pushing on other molecules?

« on: 09/05/2017 13:58:24 »

Let's be clear about what the IPCC actually says, so we can go on towards marginalizing ********MOD*******EDIT**************

From the IPCC report "Climate Change 2013: Physical Science Basis":

Is CO2 important?
Page 121: "Unequivocal evidence from in situ observations and ice core records shows that the atmospheric concentrations of important greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased over the last few centuries."

Does CO2 effect the climate?
Page 297: "Both anthropogenic climate change and anthropogenic ocean acidification are caused by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere."

Does CO2 effect glacial cycles?
Page 400: "Such close linkages between CO2 concentration and climate variability are consistent with modelling results suggesting with high confidence that glacial–interglacial variations of CO2 and other GHGs explain a considerable fraction of glacial–interglacial climate variability in regions not directly affected by the NH continental ice sheets (Timmermann et al., 2009; Shakun et al., 2012)."


On Radiative Forcing, the capacity of a factor to influence the climate:
Page 56: "Forcing by CO2 is the largest single contributor to the total forcing during the Industrial Era and from 1980–2011."
Later, same page: "Carbon dioxide is the largest single contributor to historical RF from either the perspective of changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 or the impact of changes in net emissions of CO2."

2

The Environment / Re: Can carbon dioxide raise atmospheric temperatures by pushing on other molecules?

« on: 09/05/2017 12:32:24 »

I really don't give a **** if this forum bans me, but what the **** do the Naked Scientists stand for if they allow this kind of wilful deception?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the energy for the big bang come from?

« on: 09/05/2017 12:30:24 »

I question the Big Bang and prefer a universe which is infinite and filled with an infinity of lesser such bangs rendering a homogenous CMBR that only appears to have been created by a single event

Why?

For several reason, one of which is honestly due to personal preference. But the better case for this position, revolves around the significant possibility that space/time is indeed flat and that position lends support to the infinite model. If that be the case, then it demands no special need for a singular big bang. The lesser case has do with my position on determinism, and as many have questioned, "What was before so what caused the Big Bang"? I prefer to take the position that in an infinite universe, there is no need for a beginning. Infinite in time, infinite in scope, and infinite in possibilities. Besides, with the choices we have, the best two are "The Big Bang" and "The Infinite Model" and I just prefer the latter.

You do realize that your position is not consistent, right? Since all the space you have observable access to is a single "big bang" zone, regardless of how many there might be.

4

General Science / Re: Does the end of my ruler travel faster than the speed of light ?

« on: 08/05/2017 15:47:12 »

Thank you so much.can we assume it is infinitely rigid ?

If you want to deny Special Relativity.

5

The Environment / Re: Can carbon dioxide raise atmospheric temperatures by pushing on other molecules?

« on: 08/05/2017 15:46:23 »

Sure. It plays almost no role, except roles that people might actually care about.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the energy for the big bang come from?

« on: 08/05/2017 13:52:23 »

I take it that is an assumption. There is surely no way to demonstrate that  except by assuming it to be true and testing that assumption against predictions,is there?

It's a law of physics, i.e. the conservation of energy.

Sadly, this is not the case.

First, the conservation of energy is not something that one can easily apply in the context of GR. It is not something that one can say holds in all the contexts that we are used to imagining in classical physics.

Second, the idea that the entire energy of the universe is canceled out by gravity is part of some hypothetical models of the universe. It is not something demonstrated, nor is it required to be part of the standard cosmological model.

Most amateurs don't realize if but the absolute value of the energy of a system has no physical meaning so it can be set to anything one wishes. What is physically meaningful is that its always constant. So we can set that constant to zero before the be big bang and it will remain zero. It's no different in cosmology than in classical mechanics.

That's a far different statement than one that says that the value is exactly cancelled out by gravity. The cancelling out statement is supposed to have specific physical content, rather than the nebulous it-doesn't-matter-so-arbitrary approach. One claim cannot support the other.

If you'd like to read the details then see
The Inflationary Universe by Alan H. Guth, Addison Wesley, 1997, page 9-12.

You can download it for free at: http://b-ok.org/book/2192972/f7d328

As for where the universe came from there is a scientific idea that it came from vacuum fluctuations. This was first proposed by Edward Tyron.

Yes, reading the book by Guth you will see Guth advocating a sort of vacuum fluctuation hypothesis, wherein it is proposed that the total energy of the universe is 0 is the gravity-cancelling way.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the twin paradox real?

« on: 08/05/2017 13:40:17 »

In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame.

Sure, we can do this if we ignore the text of the scenario, where one twin turns around relative to themselves.

8

General Science / Re: Does the end of my ruler travel faster than the speed of light ?

« on: 08/05/2017 13:32:48 »

First I would suggest that you think about the energy required to move that ruler.

But we can disregard that. You are assuming that the ruler is infinitely rigid. It's not. One of the consequences of Special Relativity is that there is an upper limit to rigidity. Your ruler will bend significantly.

9

New Theories / Re: On the speed of light as invariant:

« on: 27/04/2017 01:21:27 »

Physicists have often been amazed at the  invariance of the speed of light. This means that regardless of whether the source is moving or the destination is moving or even if both are moving, the speed of light remains constant at 3 x 10⁵ km/s approx.  What is so unusual about this? Unusual ! It goes absolutely against every practical experience known to mankind!

I understand the point, but the constancy of the speed of light doesn't go against attempts to measure the speed of light: those always show a constant speed in a vacuum relative to a local system of coordinates.

One could say that things that are colored red go against all experience of things that aren't red, but that wouldn't be particularly informative. Language that ignores the real evidence for contemporary relativity theory makes it seem that relativity theory is merely conceptual and undercuts the empirical evidence for the theory.

In the normal world things obey what are known as Galilean transformations. Thus  take two fast cars 150 Kms apart and travelling towards each other. Car (a) going at 150 kmh and car(b) at 100 kmh. If they both start off at exactly the same time when will they meet ?  It might surprise you at first to learn that the time at which they will meet is governed by their combined speed or 100 kmh = 150 kmh = 250 kmh. They will therefore meet after  36 minutes during which time  car (a) would have covered 90 Km and car (b) would have covered 60 km. The same would apply if the cars were moving away from each other here, the speed of the two cars is again combined but this time they are moving away from each other, thus they are departing from each other at a relative speed of 100 km + 150 kmh = 250 kmh.  If both cars are moving in the same direction than the speed of car (a) relative to the speed of car (b) would be the difference in speed 150 kmh - 100 kmh = 50 kmh.  These cars are moving according to Galilean transformations.

Except that we have reasons to believe that, in the normal world, the cars aren't actually moving according to Galilean transformations; it's just that Galilean transformations are a really good approximation to the actual transformations that the cars obey. We can use the Lorentz transformations for the cars and get the same answers, well within allowable error, to the standard physics problems. We just know that there are circumstances where the Lorentz transformations give us a more accurate picture of the relevant physics.

I was thinking about this problem when it occurred  to me that the speed of sound (because it is a wave)  is also invariant.

It might be invariant with respect to the medium, but the speed of a particular sound on Earth relative to Mars will be different than the speed of that sound relative to the Earth. This is different to the constancy of the speed of light: the speed is constant relative to any well-formed system of coordinates that we might choose. This is not a simple difference, since our time coordinates can be different as well as the relative position of spatial axes over time. And the ramification of this do trickle down to the transformations that govern cars, unlike the limitations of the speed of sound in a medium.

10

New Theories / Re: Aether Fields

« on: 26/04/2017 15:35:26 »

Then

1. So is the BB.

If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.

2. So is the photon as a particle.

There are many ways to detect particle-like behaviors from photons. But you are right, photons are not classical particles, they are quanta.

3. So is a cause of gravity.

Yeah, we know the nature of gravity pretty well, but one can always look for a cause. In doing so, one should actually try to produce evidence about the nature of the phenomena being investigated and show how the cause actually helps us gain more and better evidence about the phenomena.

4. So is a cause of magnetism.

Well, magnetism is due to the EM field, but you can always look for a cause of that.

5. So is the cause of the weak force.
6. So is the cause of the strong force.
7. So is the cause of c being constant.
8. So is the cause of electron motion.
Shall I go on?

Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence.

The two of you must be young about thirties. You just settled in on what you were taught and remained satisfied. The two of you are probably not worthy scientists yet.

Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.

McQueen on the other hand makes the argument of being in new theories which needs some leeway to say the least.

What theories need is evidence.

Jeff let me ask you a question. If aether particles were spinning at c what could you possibly use to detect them? You would need something faster than c and nothing is faster than c. Indirectly a interference on the spin c could propagate that interference at c. Would you consider that a detection? How about the correlation between mechanical and photon clocks reading the same in every frame? How about a slower electron producing a faster photon. How about how the photon remains constant in a vacuum.

That doesn't even make sense. One can detect particles through collision, regardless of whether they are spinning.

If you have a theory, then show us the numbers and how they work out.

If there is an aether, then either it has no effects and is superfluous for our reasoning or it has effects and these can bear on evidence.

If science waited for something to be detected we would not even have the atom for reference.

Science does wait for things to be detected. One should believe in atomic particles because of the detectable evidence, not because it is an interesting theory with leeway. I urge you to read about the history of the evidence for atoms.

Rather than be defensive of what you have learned how about using what you learned to try and further the knowledge of science.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe that is what people are doing when they question someone like McQueen? There is a vast amount of evidence out there that McQueen seems to be ignoring or distorting. You want us to forget about all the evidence and jump on board with McQueen.

11

New Theories / Re: Are there flaws in the theory of special relativity?

« on: 26/04/2017 12:55:24 »

Note to xersanozgen: your basic mathematical mistakes and your choice of topics make it clear that you do not understand this topic.

12

New Theories / Re: Re: Aether Fields

« on: 26/04/2017 12:53:50 »

PhyBang: So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.

I can't play this nursery school crap with you. You have had your say, get off my thread!

Yes, I agree that you can't play  "nursery school crap" like providing evidence to support scientific claims.

13

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 26/04/2017 12:51:50 »

The "Gulf Stream Thing" is something debated by actual climate scientists. You focus on it because it is dubious and the scientists agree. You ignore the actual problems, like the link I posted and that was reposted above at least once.

14

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 25/04/2017 21:16:52 »

Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 

Says the liar. And bigot.

15

The Environment / Re: Is sea level rising, or land sinking?

« on: 25/04/2017 17:26:54 »

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

But you have to actually be useful to get a job in the oil industry whilst anybody who can sound good has a chance in the ecco-industry.

No, that is actually the opposite of true in this context. Look up Fred SInger.

16

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 25/04/2017 17:26:18 »

Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.

Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

17

New Theories / Re: Aether Fields

« on: 25/04/2017 11:40:36 »

If you have to question the claim that the aether was supposed to possess a rigidity millions of times that of steel, you shouldn't be on this forum, least of all making snide remarks about my posts.

So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.

It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.

An improvement and a better approach. In a new theories forum an open mind a rational outlook is more productive.

Yes, a rational outlook would be nice. But it seems that all we get are cranks that can't do basic physics and that misrepresent the history of science.

18

New Theories / Re: Re: Aether Fields

« on: 24/04/2017 21:56:53 »

An ether of c spin particles would be indistinguishable from Relativity and move the electrons. Moving the electrons is what theories are missing.

There is no content to the phrase, "c spin particle".

Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.

That is circular reasoning that is not accurate for all ether types.

Yes, the problem for aether theories is that, they either fit the facts and can't be detected or they can in principle be detected but that means that they don't fit the facts. They are at best an extra addition to physical theories that cannot be supported by evidence.

It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.

19

New Theories / Re: Aether Fields

« on: 24/04/2017 14:19:26 »

For instance are you aware  that the Michelson & Morley experiment was looking for an aether with the following properties:

1.   It was tasteless
2.   It was odourless.

If you have to list tasteless and odorless on a list of properties of the aether, then you really are hopeless. You can't even identify the salient physical properties of the very thing that is the center of your own crank theory.

3.   It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

4.   It was flexible enough  that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.

Again, you don't seem to understand the basic features of the aether. The planets had to cause a disturbance, because the planets are made of matter that interacts via electromagnetism.

5.   It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.

Actually, they were looking for an aether that surrounded matter in a manner that showed that it did exist; hence the point of an experiment looking for its effects. The problem is that nobody can find any evidence that it exists and no theory that includes an aether can match the physical evidence.

Is it such a great surprise that they could not find it?

It is surprising that you would give that list, yes. It was surprising that they couldn't find an aether; remember, they went looking for it.

 

IMHO the only  people other than yourself  who had their heads so far up a wrong place seem to have been Michelson & Morley. An aether that was several millions of times more rigid than steel! Do you have any idea how rigid steel is, try thinking of something  several million of times more rigid than that. At the same time this substance had to be completely invisible and undetectable.

Again, not undetectable, detectable in a specific way.

So here we have something that is millions of times more rigid than steel, yet is completely invisible and completely non-tactile, what exactly do you think were the chances that Michelson & Morley would find such a substance? The answer is NIL!

Your claim seems to indicate that you do not understand what the aether is in general.

Lastly, I am pretty sure that if Physicists had persevered and waited to find an aether that would fit all the criteria, as the Gestalt Aether Theory has done.  They would have found it.

Please do one simple optical problem using GAT.

20

New Theories / Re: Aether Fields

« on: 23/04/2017 23:52:42 »

Boiring Chemist : One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation. It doesn't behave like the aether.

Hello, knock, knock. Wakey! wakey! This the New Theories Forum!

But it is not the fiction forum. The fact remains that the EM field does not act like an aether. Nothing has been shown to act like an aether.