Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
[email protected] andresmuro@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Lord Valve Lord Valve is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 296
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
[email protected] andresmuro@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
landotter landotter is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
[email protected] andresmuro@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Ben C Ben C is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies

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 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.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Lord Valve Lord Valve is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 296
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
sam booka sam booka is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies

" 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.

--
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
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
sam booka sam booka is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
sam booka sam booka is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Ben C Ben C is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Les Cargill[_2_] Les Cargill[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 355
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
AMuzi AMuzi is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default 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
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Les Cargill[_2_] Les Cargill[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 355
Default Einstein & QM was: Appeasing Carbo Doxy, was Al Bore cancelsNopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies

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 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,


Um.... yeah they have.

1) Nature isn't very deterministic. Perfect determinism requires
error bars to be exactly zero; that's not the case. Noise exists,
and you can't negotiate it away. You can, however, move it around.

2) "Spooky action at a distance" is just a poorly formed
question. In fourspace "distance" does not mean what you think
it does...


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.


If they figure it out, everybody has to get real jobs.

--
Les Cargill
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
[email protected] andresmuro@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
[email protected] andresmuro@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Michael Press Michael Press is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Michael Press Michael Press is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Michael Press Michael Press is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Michael Press Michael Press is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Ben C Ben C is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default 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.
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Tom Sherman °_° Tom Sherman °_° is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
thirty-six thirty-six is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
RichL RichL is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.guitar.amps
Andre Jute[_2_] Andre Jute[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Al Bore cancels Nopenhagen lovefest for his global warmies Andre Jute[_2_] Vacuum Tubes 50 December 14th 09 02:42 AM
On the hubris of the global warmies Andre Jute[_2_] Vacuum Tubes 14 December 4th 09 06:22 PM
On the hubris of the global warmies Andre Jute[_2_] Vacuum Tubes 0 December 3rd 09 05:48 PM
The web's prime bore [email protected] Audio Opinions 17 April 24th 06 07:10 AM
Spain "appeasing" terrorists? Baloney! Sandman Audio Opinions 0 March 20th 04 03:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"