Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 10, 5:48*am, sam booka wrote:
"RichL" tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this : sam booka wrote: flipper tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this m: Someone has to pay for the changes to energy production which are needed to keep a nice cool world. Everyone wants money for 1,001 things and my guess is that most ppl in the world will spend for the short term betterment rather than for the betterment of their grand children. Why would a species spend on the welfare of its yet-to-be- borns when live members have had to fund all their lives without inheritance? * Why would a species spend on un-borns when they know half of them will turn out into porn watching drug addicts? We can all be so loving towards the rest of mankind, but like so many marriages that begin with such hope and potential, the end result is an ugly argument about money. Patrick Turner. I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near, sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or often, you scream it. The dumazzes still don't get it that they've been disgraced and banished to the dogma house. Now I see they are trying to deflect to the sea level rising fraud, long debunked by the late great John L. Daly, although all the raw data is still up on his site, www.john-daly.com. In particular, it is this damning article, http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htmso spread it far and wide to expose their double down on stupid while the caviar, jets, limos, and hookers are still hot Oh sure, a ****ing sailor says it ain't so, so screw all the scientists.. You haven't been paying attention Doc. The so-called scientists are disgraced by fraud and pathetic attempts to cover their tracks. The only ones left with any credibility are the skeptics. http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11...e-of-fraud-by-... Come to think of it, you haven't been very skeptical. -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out that in every single community there are dishonest people but we don't through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a handful of scientists, the right is ready to condemn all climatologists as frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few others are following suit in this group. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
Michael Press wrote:
In article . com, Spender wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:43:10 -0500, "RichL" wrote: Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research. Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees. Are you say it's not? -- Michael Press ROFLMBFAO! No, I'm saying the temperature in the center of Algore's brain is probably much closer to room ambient than is most folks'. http://www.bikepainter.com/hopey-changey.jpg Lord Valve Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan (Occupied United States of God Damn America) BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! Safety!! O ne B ig A ss M istake, A merica! http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm Don't forget to nark this fishy post to ! http://www.bikepainter.com/jokesonyou.jpg |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 10, 1:57*pm, landotter wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:47*pm, Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter wrote: Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of theological assumption? Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds that "God does not play dice". Fail. Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM. Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 11, 8:59*am, " wrote:
On Dec 10, 1:57*pm, landotter wrote: On Dec 10, 2:47*pm, Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter wrote: Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of theological assumption? Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds that "God does not play dice". Fail. Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM. Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. Ok--you do know why Einstein was brought up? As a smokescreen when I pointed out that a wingnut source is an evolution denier. Trolls love when you get sidetracked. My recollection of QM history might be a bit fuzzy--but I do know better than to cite people who live in Alabaman shacks and believe Jesus rode a dinosaur. ;-) |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On Dec 11, 8:16*am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 11, 8:59*am, " wrote: On Dec 10, 1:57*pm, landotter wrote: On Dec 10, 2:47*pm, Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter wrote: Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of theological assumption? Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds that "God does not play dice". Fail. Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM. Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. Ok--you do know why Einstein was brought up? As a smokescreen when I pointed out that a wingnut source is an evolution denier. Trolls love when you get sidetracked. My recollection of QM history might be a bit fuzzy--but I do know better than to cite people who live in Alabaman shacks and believe Jesus rode a dinosaur. ;-) W/o going down through all the posts, I figured that much out. Einstein did not use religion to refute QM. He made his famous statement as a metaphor for the fact that the laws of nature would not be uncertain and depend on probability. He was essentially questioning the ontological argument that the essence of things could not be indeterminate or probabilistic. Unfortunately all the evidence accumulated since then has proven him wrong and has open the debate about the certainty of perception and determinacy of nature all the way back to Zeno's paradoxes. It is true that Einstein was one of the physicists in the center of the debate about QM and a leading physicist. The irony of the whole thing is that Niels Bohr was able to refute the EPR paradox using Einstein's own relativity theory. It was both really simple, incredibly cool and a flash of total ingeniousness how he did it. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Ben C wrote:
It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? ;-) LV |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Andre Jute tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:b1283721-fab2-41c7-a458-e91977c1b655 @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com: The big irony is that DDT wasn't even banned for green reasons, it was explicit among the leaders of the campaign that it was a test case to demonstrate their political muscle. Their little demonstration has so far cost about 220 million lives, and anybody who today supports the continued banning of DDT is complicit in that continuing genocide. Andre Jute Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain Bingo! I wonder how much pseudoscience they relied on to hoodwink the public in that debate? -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Spender tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" ews.com: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:07:08 -0600, AMuzi wrote: "RichL" wrote: Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research. Spender wrote: Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees. Michael Press wrote: Are you say it's not? Spender wrote: Are you say it is? Hey guys this is a knowable thing: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...re+temperature It is at least a estimitable (if that's a word... hell, it is now) thing, with estimates ranging from 7,000° to 13,000° F. Hell, he only missed by (several million)-10,000 or so. Yeah, Al Gore is a regular fzckin' rocket surgeon alright... -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On 2009-12-11, Lord Valve wrote:
Ben C wrote: It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? ;-) Subtly different, because you might expect to find evidence for these hidden variables one day. If you could construct a theory that made use of them then it might imply an experiment you could design to detect them. But I don't think anybody expects they will ever be able to design an experiment to detect the presence of God. It's not an empirical question at all. The debate is more about whether the idea makes sense at all. If you did think you had detected God empirically, you would be best advised to ask him what he needed with your starship and watch him unravel from there. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Lord Valve wrote:
Ben C wrote: It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? ;-) LV Hidden variables aren't part of the Copenhagen interpretation. You don't need them, anyway - uncertainties work out a lot like Shannon's information theory, and indeed, the Nyquist and Shannon Theorems are used in physics, especially in large scale cosmology and how that interacts with quantum effects - black holes, IOW. You definitionally *cannot* prove the existence of God, because that would simply then be nature and no longer divine. Leads to a contradiction. If you can find the old episode of Bill Buckleys' show with the head of the Anglican church, he goes through all this No, I don't know where to find it. People used to understand that there wasn't a problem with faith coexisting with reason. Then the 1960s happened. -- Les Cargill |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Les Cargill wrote:
Lord Valve wrote: Ben C wrote: It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? ;-) LV Hidden variables aren't part of the Copenhagen interpretation. You don't need them, anyway - uncertainties work out a lot like Shannon's information theory, and indeed, the Nyquist and Shannon Theorems are used in physics, especially in large scale cosmology and how that interacts with quantum effects - black holes, IOW. You definitionally *cannot* prove the existence of God, because that would simply then be nature and no longer divine. Leads to a contradiction. If you can find the old episode of Bill Buckleys' show with the head of the Anglican church, he goes through all this No, I don't know where to find it. People used to understand that there wasn't a problem with faith coexisting with reason. Then the 1960s happened. -- Les Cargill Which is fine. Belief is not knowledge but it's harmless, at least until one starts lopping infidel heads. Such as mine. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
wrote:
On Dec 10, 1:57 pm, landotter wrote: On Dec 10, 2:47 pm, Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:28:10 -0800 (PST), landotter wrote: Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of theological assumption? Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds that "God does not play dice". Fail. Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM. Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. "EPR" paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen). And I don't believe it can be fairly said that Bohr *successfully* refuted it. The resolution of the paradox depends on what version of the *interpretation* of QM that you subscribe to. It's still being actively debated today. It was a brilliant *gedanken* experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_par...ntum_mechanics |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
sam booka wrote:
" tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this on?" news:b422a941-2e47-4333-a2c8- : A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out that in every single community there are dishonest people but we don't through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a handful of scientists, the right is ready to condemn all climatologists as frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few others are following suit in this group. Difference is that 1. The fraud wasn't as widespread and 2. It likely wasn't for the purpose of ripping off trillions. Did the pharma guys stonewall raw data requests and obstruct for 10 years? Did they buddy up with every azzhole who would thump their tub to plump up their credibility? Did they attack every single source of criticism, all of it valid in retrospect? No. Only the clearly insane chicken little bleating mo0nbat pseudoscientists did that, and now they are caught in a trainwreck born of their narcissism, also bringing down their narcissistic supply buddies. Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence, I believe... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121003159.html (Gerson was GWB's speechwriter...) "Even if every question raised in these e-mails were conceded, the cumulative case for global climate disruption would be strong. The evidence is found not only in East Anglian computers but also in changing crop zones, declining species, melting ice sheets and glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. No other scientific theory explains these changes as well as global warming related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Over millennia, the climate shifts in natural cycles. But we seem to be increasing the pace of change so rapidly that plants, animals and humans may not be able to adequately adjust." Gerson goes on to address the *legitimate* issues of scientific ethics: "But the hacked e-mails are not irrelevant. They reveal another sort of warming -- an overheated academic world in which hard science melts into politics." To the degree that it can be shown that there was unethical behavior, this is a serious issue and should be addressed, as it has begun to be addressed in the case of Michael Mann at Penn State, and still needs to be at East Anglia. But it does *not* discredit the entire enterprise of global warming research, any more than andresmuro's example discredits pharmaceutical research. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy universe. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Why Climategate crucially undermines the possibility of manmade
RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of
Climategate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121003159.html Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period. The moment one understands that they have been lying all along -- and almost everyone interested and capable of handling the statistics has known for a decade that they were lying (though some tried to pretend that Michael Mann was merely spectacularly incompetent rather than actively malicious)-- the question arises, "But, if the earth was warmer for five hundred years in the Middle Ages than it is now, and if there was an intervening Ice Age from which we've not fully recovered, what is this global warming fuss about?" All that is different now is the criminals have had their confessions published in those Climategate e- mails. The earth in our time is still cooler than it was for almost half a millennium in the Middle Ages, when modern agriculture was established. If there was no unnatural global warming -- and there can't be, by simple comparison with the MWP, and hasn't been -- then there is no reason to find a scapegoat in CO2. It follows that there is no need for drastic, expensive action. That is why those who understand what Climategate means onat the overarching technical end of climate science say openly that global warming is dead. The more politically adept global warmies can feel the change in their water. They have already given up even mentioning global warming; they now talk about "sudden climate change, up or down". Eventually we'll put that one down too, just another in the long line of entirely unwarranted wannabe environment/climate/health panics. You can bet your house, the coming ice age will be shouted by the same people now screeching about global warming. Andre Jute "Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich "Now's a good time for good ole Bill to switch." -- Andre Jute Here Is RichL's full text: On Dec 12, 12:41*am, "RichL" wrote: sam booka wrote: " tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this on?" news:b422a941-2e47-4333-a2c8- : A handful of scientist got caught doing dishonest stuff and some people are condemning the entire scientific community and using this against global warming research. A few years ago some scientists got caught covering up data when submitting an article to JAMA about the effects of some drugs. Of course nobody said that all scientists and all drugs were flawed, and the right wing pharma supporters did not call for stopping all R&D funding to the pharmas. We didn't stop taking drugs either because we are intelligent enough to figure out that in every single community there are dishonest people but we don't through the baby with the bath water. But now, because of a handful of scientists, the right is ready to condemn all climatologists as frauds. The Afrikaner spammer clown and a few others are following suit in this group. Difference is that 1. The fraud wasn't as widespread and 2. It likely wasn't for the purpose of ripping off trillions. Did the pharma guys stonewall raw data requests and obstruct for 10 years? Did they buddy up with every azzhole who would thump their tub to plump up their credibility? Did they attack every single source of criticism, all of it valid in retrospect? No. Only the clearly insane chicken little bleating mo0nbat pseudoscientists did that, and now they are caught in a trainwreck born of their narcissism, also bringing down their narcissistic supply buddies. Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence, I believe... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/10/AR200... (Gerson was GWB's speechwriter...) "Even if every question raised in these e-mails were conceded, the cumulative case for global climate disruption would be strong. The evidence is found not only in East Anglian computers but also in changing crop zones, declining species, melting ice sheets and glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. No other scientific theory explains these changes as well as global warming related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Over millennia, the climate shifts in natural cycles. But we seem to be increasing the pace of change so rapidly that plants, animals and humans may not be able to adequately adjust." Gerson goes on to address the *legitimate* issues of scientific ethics: "But the hacked e-mails are not irrelevant. They reveal another sort of warming -- an overheated academic world in which hard science melts into politics." To the degree that it can be shown that there was unethical behavior, this is a serious issue and should be addressed, as it has begun to be addressed in the case of Michael Mann at Penn State, and still needs to be at East Anglia. *But it does *not* discredit the entire enterprise of global warming research, any more than andresmuro's example discredits pharmaceutical research. *If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy universe. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 11, 9:54*pm, sam booka wrote:
Andre Jute tapped the mic and amongst other things, said, "Is this on?" news:b1283721-fab2-41c7-a458-e91977c1b655 @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com: The big irony is that DDT wasn't even banned for green reasons, it was explicit among the leaders of the campaign that it was a test case to demonstrate their political muscle. Their little demonstration has so far cost about 220 million lives, and anybody who today supports the continued banning of DDT is complicit in that continuing genocide. Andre Jute *Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain Bingo! I wonder how much pseudoscience they relied on to hoodwink the public in that debate? Not only pseudoscience by the ton, papers in peer reviewed journals now quietly forgotten because everyone knows they're politically inspired lies, but the same bullying tactics of accusing anyone who dissented from their hysteria of taking the pharmashilling, intimidation of real scientists who asked for proof rather than ideology, suppression of the truth (they knew there was not a single case of cancer traceable to DDT, yet they claimed the 50,000 a year were dying from DDT induced cancer), outright lies, etc. Same old same old. Second and third generation DDT banners cringe when I call them genocides and bluster (as Chalo does) that he doesn't care if I have all the statistics, he still believes DDT is carcinogenic or Cole who cuts away my argument and whines, without even trying to counter my facts, that I am "wrong" -- nope, Colesy, your sainted Rachel Carson killed 220,000 of the most defenseless people on earth, mainly women and children, by the misery-making weapon of avoidable starvation. The arrogance of the scum who banned DDT is unbelievable, and so is the arrogance of the people now defending that action on no better ground than that they want DDT banned and don't care who dies as a result. Andre Jute Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On Dec 11, 9:42*pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Ben C wrote: It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Gee...that sounds kinda like God, don't it? *;-) LV I heard the voice from the burning bush but, even to me, it sounded like me. Damn, gotta work on myt ventriloquist projection. Definitely a hidden variable at work... -- Andre Jute |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
RBT's resident racist abuser Andres Muro wrote:
The Afrikaner spammer clown |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 11, 6:16*am, Chalo wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven. The same can be claimed for dioxins. *People get cancer, they die-- who's to say what caused it? *Correlation between exposure levels and cancer rates proves nothing. I keep saying to you, Chalo, that I have no problem if you want to believe as a religious imperative in smoking potatos and eating boiled tobacco leaves. The problem arises when you, who clearly from what you say on other subjects *knows better*, on global warming reject science and even truth in your compulsion to find Man and CO2 guilty of something, anything. And now, on DDT, when you have no answers to my accusation that the banning of DDT resulted in a monstrous genocide caused by environmental arrogance fronted by Rachel Carson, you come out with this crap about proof not mattering. *It doesn't matter that most organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard. That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to conform to social engineering. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent polluter. At least you're only polluting the truth here. Andre Jute The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 11, 4:30*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: I've explained all this to you, Colesy, and I remember your disgustingly smug reply to the effect, "Oh, we now permit them limited use of DDT," as if their lives are up to you to permit or dispose of. It's that sort of callousness that makes the American left into such very, very Ugly Americans. We've been all over this before. You're wrong. Cole cuts away my argument and whines, without even trying to counter my facts, that I am "wrong" -- nope, Colesy, your sainted Rachel Carson killed 220,000 of the most defenseless people on earth, mainly women and children, by the misery of avoidable starvation. The arrogance of the scum who banned DDT is unbelievable, and so is the arrogance of the people now defending that action on no better ground than that they want DDT banned and don't care how many hundreds of millions die as a result. Need I say that I despise the lot of you? Andre Jute The iron law of unintended effect will whiplash the thoughtless and the arrogant |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
* Still Just Me * wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:59:32 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. But QM is still just a theory, and a rather loose one at that. "Loose one"? QM is one of the most successful theories in modern physics. Ability to predict the results of experiments in some cases to precisions of one part in 10^12 and higher is hardly what I'd call "loose". The problem with QM (if there even is one) isn't the theory itself, it's with the *interpretation* (read: attempts to relate it to intuitive, every-day phenomena). It is attempts to extrapolate those phenomena beyond their established domains of validity that leads to apparent conflicts. We can't seem to predict where particles will be, but that doesn't mean that they aren't predictable. We also have the issue of small vs. large objects. That is the essence; we expect that small objects should behave as large ones and that we should be able to acquire as much information about small objects as we do large ones. Clearly the theory of relativity seems to be holding for large objects The theory of relativity holds for small objects as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory Those little buggers can't go faster than the speed of light, either! and logically there's some mathematical progression to smaller objects and hopefully a Unified Field Theory. The "field" that causes problems in attempting to unify physics isn't QM or special relativity, it's gravity. Now they're up to 11 dimensions in their efforts to provide such unification. I tend to defer to Einstein in that I think we just don't know enough about small objects to figure out whey they don't show up predictably - aside from the very issue of our inability to measure them without affecting them. You're assuming such information is knowable. It's not. The Heisenberg principle is pretty firmly established; it's a necessary consequence of the duality between particle and wave behavior. I wonder if any of us will be alive when they figure it out... Most physicists consider it "figured out" already. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Why Climategate crucially undermines the possibility of manmade global warming, was Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Andre Jute wrote:
RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of Climategate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121003159.html Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather between about AD 800-1300, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying ".current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century. Crowley and Lowery (2000) note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere." From the Wiki article: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ar_Temperature _Comparison.png It is obvious to all but a mindless Zombie, looking at the graph, that inclusion of data from the Medieval warm period and the little ice age do not significantly alter conclusions drawn from the post-1800 data in comparison with the prior data. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On Dec 11, 2:38*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-11, wrote: [...] Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. Ok--you do know why Einstein was brought up? As a smokescreen when I pointed out that a wingnut source is an evolution denier. Trolls love when you get sidetracked. My recollection of QM history might be a bit fuzzy--but I do know better than to cite people who live in Alabaman shacks and believe Jesus rode a dinosaur. ;-) W/o going down through all the posts, I figured that much out. Einstein did not use religion to refute QM. He made his famous statement as a metaphor for the fact that the laws of nature would not be uncertain and depend on probability. He was essentially questioning the ontological argument that the essence of things could not be indeterminate or probabilistic. You mean he was putting forward that argument presumably? Unfortunately all the evidence accumulated since then has proven him wrong and has open the debate about the certainty of perception and determinacy of nature all the way back to Zeno's paradoxes. It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not that it is our tools and knowledge. Recently there was an article in the NYT about the Higgs Boson. The article states that according to a theorem, its discoverability is impossible because the impossibility of it being discovered is contained within the particle itself. The particle is influencing back in time the possibility of it being discovered. Of course, this is as incomprehensible to me as the Afrinkaneers brain or jim beam's logic. However, while this could be refuted in the future, there is strong evidence of the probabilistic and indeterminable characteristics of nature. The other difficulty Einstein had with it was the still unexplained "spooky action at a distance"-- having just created a theory in which nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. But to this day these problems have not been resolved, so I think it's too early to say anyone has been proved wrong. In a sense Einstein was right in that QM appears not to be the final answer. We just haven't figured out anything better yet. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 11, 7:08*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
RBT's resident racist abuser Andres Muro wrote: What is so racist about calling you a Afrikaner spammer clown? I am not arguing that these three elements are connected. It just happens that posses all those qualities. BTW, I'd love for you to place me in your killfile. It was such an honor. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
In article ,
AMuzi wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Dec 10, 3:56 pm, "Stephen Cowell" wrote: "Peter Cole" wrote flipper wrote: I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near, sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or often, you scream it. Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria? Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated. Strictly speaking, 'Silent Spring' was a little over the top... as close as I can come, sorry. __ Steve You must be a very nice guy to be so mild, Steve. "Silent Spring" was the motivator of a monstrous genocide by the banning of DDT that continues to this day. Rachel Carson was the figurehead of gross and disgusting genocide. Andre Jute Let's call the thing by its name Anyone who has plodded through her 'Silent Spring' and 'Edge of the Sea' has suffered too. Total waste of time. As a youngster interested in stuff and looking for more things to be interested in I bought a paperback with the title UFO's. It promoted the thesis that there are extraterrestrial UFOs visiting planet Earth. I was disappointed to find that there was not one persuasive argument in the entire book. Scarred me for life. Since then I have never been able to read a book that reminds me of that unpleasant experience. Rachel Carson emitted the same aura as UFO's. -- Michael Press |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
In article . com,
Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:04:20 -0800, Michael Press wrote: In article . com, Spender wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:43:10 -0500, "RichL" wrote: Gore doesn't claim to base his views on his own research. Of course not. He bases it on the solid majority of scientists who believe the temperature of the interior of the earth is several million degrees. Are you say it's not? Are you say it is? Oh wait. I was thinking of the _Sun_. Nevermind. -- Michael Press |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:13:47 -0500, * Still Just Me *
wrote: But QM is still just a theory JUST a theory? Do you realise that "theory" is the highest accolade that science can bestow on any piece of work? It means that countless scientists have tested it, the means of refutation has been described, but never met. It means that it can be used to predict outcomes, and those outcomes are all found to be real. Just a theory - geez! d |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
In article . com,
Spender wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:49:48 -0600, AMuzi wrote: landotter wrote: Tell me--which scientific facts did Einstein discard in lieu of theological assumption? Spender wrote: Einstein pretty much discounted quantum mechanics in whole on the grounds that "God does not play dice". landotter wrote: Fail. Einstein is one of the founding fathers of QM. Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to refine their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of QM to Einstein. Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's. The problem is conflating statistics and wave mechanics. At the time of the debates all physical evidence of wave functions was from experiments in which coherent states were not observed, but rather inferred from atomic events in a heat bath. Einstein was just as confused as Bohr. He was correct in his hunch that the fundamental laws are continuous. Since then we have isolated and observed several astounding phenomena manifesting coherent states. Persistent Current in Superconducting Ring Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor Atomic Laser Quantized Flux in Superconducting Ring Integer Quantum Hall Effect Fractional Quantum Hall Effect Bose-Einstein Condensate Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description, the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics. I am rather firmly convinced that the development of theoretical physics will be of this type, but the path will be lengthy and difficult. --Albert Einstein I feel that it is a delusion to think of the electrons and the fields as two physically different, independent entities. Since neither can exist without the other, there is only _one_ reality to be described, which happens to have two different apspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the start instead of doing things twice. --Albert Einstein -- Michael Press |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
In article ,
Ben C wrote: On 2009-12-11, wrote: [...] Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. Ok--you do know why Einstein was brought up? As a smokescreen when I pointed out that a wingnut source is an evolution denier. Trolls love when you get sidetracked. My recollection of QM history might be a bit fuzzy--but I do know better than to cite people who live in Alabaman shacks and believe Jesus rode a dinosaur. ;-) W/o going down through all the posts, I figured that much out. Einstein did not use religion to refute QM. He made his famous statement as a metaphor for the fact that the laws of nature would not be uncertain and depend on probability. He was essentially questioning the ontological argument that the essence of things could not be indeterminate or probabilistic. You mean he was putting forward that argument presumably? Unfortunately all the evidence accumulated since then has proven him wrong and has open the debate about the certainty of perception and determinacy of nature all the way back to Zeno's paradoxes. It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. The hidden variables theories have not panned out. The other difficulty Einstein had with it was the still unexplained "spooky action at a distance"-- having just created a theory in which nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. But to this day these problems have not been resolved, so I think it's too early to say anyone has been proved wrong. In a sense Einstein was right in that QM appears not to be the final answer. We just haven't figured out anything better yet. Yes. -- Michael Press |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On 2009-12-12, RichL wrote:
[...] Reality check....from someone who's on your side of the political fence, I believe... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121003159.html (Gerson was GWB's speechwriter...) "Even if every question raised in these e-mails were conceded, the cumulative case for global climate disruption would be strong. The evidence is found not only in East Anglian computers but also in changing crop zones, declining species, melting ice sheets and glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. This is a common myth. Yes temperatures are going up a bit, which is why sea levels are going up and glaciers retreating. But that in itself is not a cause for alarm, although people should obviously be prepared. I've seen no evidence that it's unprecedented or unusual, and certainly none that it's caused by human CO2. No other scientific theory explains these changes as well as global warming related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. That's highly debatable. Certainly CO2 models don't explain the temperature record since 1900 very well. If CO2 causes instant warming (which is the claim, since warming since 1980 is being attributed to it) then why did it get cooler between 1940 and 1980 and hotter between 1900 and 1940? The CO2 theory on which James Hansen's 1988 forecasts were based has now been falsified by history-- CO2 went up by more than his worst case "do mothing" scenario, and temperatures didn't go up by nearly as much as in his "drastic CO2 cuts" scenario. Models in which the solar wind drives temperature at least seem to show better correlation with the temperature record. But even if AGW were the best scientific theory, it doesn't follow from that that it's any good. Over millennia, the climate shifts in natural cycles. But we seem to be increasing the pace of change so rapidly that plants, animals and humans may not be able to adequately adjust." Seem to be? The evidence for this is the hockey sticks, which are essentially fiction. What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique is subtracted. The argument was always weak, but it gets a whole lot weaker without the hockey stick, with the knowledge that the computer models were not necessarily done in good faith, and with a recount of the so-called consensus. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Back to the important questions
Andrew Muzi wrote:
[...] Which is fine. Belief is not knowledge but it's harmless, at least until one starts lopping infidel heads. Such as mine. Taper greasers? -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On 12 Dec, 01:13, * Still Just Me *
wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:59:32 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Actually, Einstein died trying to disprove QM. He spend his life coming up with thought experiments that would disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Every one of his attempts failed. While Einstein was part of the groups of physicists from the era of QM, he didn't buy into the principles of it. Einstein was the founder of relativity and special relativity. Plank is considered by many as the founder. Heisenberg and Bohr are the main dudes. While Einstein did not base any of his claims in theology even though he made the famous statement about god and the dice. He did not believe that QM was essentially indeterminable. He felt that the interdeterminability of QM was a problem of lack of knowledge, and that at some point, new knowledge would emerge showing that non communting elements in QM would be determinable. He died in that quest and as scientists keep on digging, the evidence keeps mounting that electrons and other quantum particles are essentially indeterminate. HIs last claim was a thought experiment called the ERP paradox that he came up with two other scientists. Bohr refuted it the day after in a flash of brillance. You guys can google it. But QM is still just a theory, and a rather loose one at that. We can't seem to predict where particles will be, but that doesn't mean that they aren't predictable. We also have the issue of small vs. large objects. *Clearly the theory of relativity seems to be holding for large objects, and logically there's some mathematical progression to smaller objects and hopefully a Unified Field Theory. I tend to defer to Einstein in that I think we just don't know enough about small objects to figure out whey they don't show up predictably - aside from the very issue of our inability to measure them without affecting them. But, perhaps there's some distortion of force, or perhaps the force is relatively speaking so extreme as you approach finite sizes that the force itself causes unpredictability. I wonder if any of us will be alive when they figure it out... It's "The force". It is everywhere observable as pressure, gravity, heat and induction. George Lucas is the keeper of the force and controls it directly. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-12, wrote: On Dec 11, 2:38 pm, Ben C wrote: [...] It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't exist. Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not that it is our tools and knowledge. The weird thing though is that they only become indeterminable when you try to measure them A tautology. You're essentially defining "indeterminable". and we still don't really understand what a measurement is, or whether they happen if no-one's looking. "A measurement" is fully defined and understood within the rules of QM. What happens when no one is looking is again well defined within QM: if a system is in an eigenstate it will remain so in the absence of an external perturbation. Any system's state can, at any moment of time, be expanded in a series of eigenstates since the entire set of eigenstates form a complete set, and it will evolve according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Ben C wrote:
What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique is subtracted. That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's far from being answered. To me, those who oppose climate-warming research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds perpetrated by a few. I'd counsel patience by all at this point. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "RichL"
wrote: "A measurement" is fully defined and understood within the rules of QM. What happens when no one is looking is again well defined within QM: if a system is in an eigenstate it will remain so in the absence of an external perturbation. Any system's state can, at any moment of time, be expanded in a series of eigenstates since the entire set of eigenstates form a complete set, and it will evolve according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. As I understand it, a measurement in QM is anything that collapses the wave function. In other words, if you find yourself in a position to be able to say anything about the state of a quantum system, you have made a measurement. d |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "RichL" wrote: "A measurement" is fully defined and understood within the rules of QM. What happens when no one is looking is again well defined within QM: if a system is in an eigenstate it will remain so in the absence of an external perturbation. Any system's state can, at any moment of time, be expanded in a series of eigenstates since the entire set of eigenstates form a complete set, and it will evolve according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. As I understand it, a measurement in QM is anything that collapses the wave function. In other words, if you find yourself in a position to be able to say anything about the state of a quantum system, you have made a measurement. d Well, you can *calculate* the results of a set of possibilities as to what state a system is in without disturbing it, but if you want to answer the question "which of these possibilities is the one that the system is actually in", yes, you need to make a measurement, you "collapse the wave function", and in so doing you disturb the system! The exception is that if the operator corresponding to the quantity you want to determine *commutes* with the system's Hamiltonian. In that case, what you want to determine is a so-called "good quantum number", which means, essentially, that the wave function is already "collapsed" as far as that quantity is concerned and your measurement hasn't disturbed anything. A good example of this is the momentum of a particle moving in free space (i.e., in the absence of any external fields). Momentum commutes with the Hamiltonian (which is simply p^2/(2m) in this case) and you can measure momentum to arbitrary precision without "kicking" the particle out of its energy eigenstate. In contrast, if you attempted to measure its position, it would no longer be in an energy eigenstate and the value of the particle's energy after the position measurement would no longer be predictable. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
|
|||
|
|||
Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefestfor his global warmies
On Dec 12, 7:34*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article , *AMuzi wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Dec 10, 3:56 pm, "Stephen Cowell" wrote: "Peter Cole" wrote flipper wrote: I see no sane reason to 'pay' for a fabricated 'crisis' fantasy and you stomping around in ashes and sackcloth wailing "the end is near, sinner repent" isn't a compelling argument no matter how loud, or often, you scream it. Just curious -- such skepticism must have roots. Has there yet been a major "environmental" movement that proved to be over-hyped hysteria? Conservatives often cite ozone and DDT, but researching those, I haven't seen anything to support the claim that those hazards were overestimated. Strictly speaking, 'Silent Spring' was a little over the top... as close as I can come, sorry. __ Steve You must be a very nice guy to be so mild, Steve. "Silent Spring" was the motivator of a monstrous genocide by the banning of DDT that continues to this day. Rachel Carson was the figurehead of gross and disgusting genocide. Andre Jute Let's call the thing by its name Anyone who has plodded through her 'Silent Spring' and 'Edge of the Sea' has suffered too. Total waste of time. Rachel Carson emitted the same aura as UFO's. Reading Carson is definitely punishment duty for anyone rational. On my grandmother's shelf Carson stood next to Erich von Daniken... At least Daniken the paleocontact fictionalist is a true believer, which is more than we can say for the paleoclimatological fictionalists connected to the IPCC lie factory. Andre Jute Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
On the hubris of the global warmies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
On the hubris of the global warmies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
The web's prime bore | Audio Opinions | |||
Spain "appeasing" terrorists? Baloney! | Audio Opinions |