Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/04/18 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Damn, busted! I guess it’s time to come clean. I suppose I always knew it would come out that I’ve spent over a decade at this site contributing nearly 20,000 posts on varied topics... and all just to bolster the master plan and ready the battleground such that one day when you ultimately registered at SFN 11 years later... when it finally all came together once you joined this community one month ago complete with your ironclad logic and inpenetrateble arguments... that I might hope to fool the flock into not taking you seriously. Well spotted, Mr Homes. Well spotted, indeed. You have clearly bested me with your awe inspiring genius. I concede.
  2. 3 points
    I had in mind things like carbon pricing that make the externalised costs part of the pricing of various transport choices, not forced vehicle confiscations. I want reasoned and reasonable responses to climate change from governments - preventing unreasonable responses as well as promoting reasonable ones is a legitimate thing ordinary people can do when they vote. Facing up to it - taking the expert advice seriously - should be the barest minimum to expect, not something an irate public has to demand from someone holding high office. Climate change is not about socialist versus capitalist, it is about accountability and responsibility. It is not anti-free enterprise to want accountability and costing of climate externalities.
  3. 2 points
    You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!
  4. 1 point
    We have evaluated the past. Ice cores being a mainstay. Normally climate change is real gradual. Things bob up and down slightly or gradually move in one direction or another. We're seeing a transition from hills to Everest though. There isn't something like an asteroid or sufficient volcanic action to explain such a sudden change. Science is evidence based so it isn't a matter of faith llike the religions you mentioned. You can(and for your own well being should) review the multiple lines of evidence yourself. Locally my state is seeing land vanish and the long summer/late winter effect. Kind of past the time to debate. Trying to figure out ways to minimize the personal impact at this point.
  5. 1 point
    Lol. Apparently I’m also a sock puppet of Apple autocorrect
  6. 1 point
    OK. But water at any temperature above 0ºC does not freeze. It has to cool to freezing point before it freezes. The observation is that hot water can cool to freezing temperature faster than cold water (the Mpemba effect - see link). As far as I know, this has still not been fully explained. It may be that there are multiple factors involved. So one of the explanations does suggest that higher temperatures could create more of the types of hydrogen bonds that can act as nucleation centres: (From your link)
  7. 1 point
    Exactly, evidence can lead to a proof (to whatever standard is required in, say, a court of law). Evidence is something like "there is a fingerprint". But it is the interpretation of that evidence, and all the other evidence, that can lead to a proof. Even, "we found a fingerprint of the suspect on the murder weapon" isn't proof that the suspect is the murderer. There may be other evidence that proves the suspect was out of the country at the time. Or that explains why the fingerprint could be there.
  8. 1 point
    I skimmed back through earlier posts just to check if there was a link to fairly recent large scale cosmic evolution simulations. Here's one hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qqEzBG9OI Indicates just how good the match between theory prediction and observation has become. No input assuming anti-gravity anywhere. Another one that goes into technical details I cannot follow but you get the idea it's very complex with lots of factors involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI12X2zczqI Again - the physics makes no use of anti-gravity to arrive at voids and webs structures actually observed. Recall too that growth is in part a consequence of an overall cosmic expansion - hence voids growing reflects that.
  9. 1 point
    Depends on what you’re wearing. Depends on how deep the diving point is and whether you enter head first or feet first. Even in your ridiculous example, we cannot presume to know the answer with certainty. Hey, look that! Even YOU knew enough to switch from the word proof to the word evidence in your second sentence before posting. Perhaps it’s because even you’re aware they have different meanings?
  10. 1 point
    It's too bad... At one time, the Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the World. They decided, in 1994, to join the NPT, and dismantle their sizeable nuclear arsenal. I don't think even V Putin would be brave enough to pull these stunts if the Ukraine was still a nuclear power. If you live beside a 'bear' ( not you Silvestru ), you'd better invest in a rifle. ( say what you will about 'evil' Americans, but Canadians haven't had to face this kind of behavior since 1812 )
  11. 1 point
    coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize: 1: Consistent observations of deflection in magnetic fields shows that at least for charged anti-matter, matter and anti-matter inertial mass are equal. Equivalence Principle then requires equivalence of gravitational mass. Only Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling backwards in time logiocally suggests anti-particles anti-gravitate. But since that violates EP as per above, few these days give the idea any credence (1: here already covered in earlier post). 2: When particle-anti-particle annihilation occurs e.g. electron-positron -> gamma ray pair, one doesn't have a net zero gravitational mass outcome. Which outcome should be the logical expectation if indeed the input is positive gravitational mass electron + negative gravitational mass positron. (There is also a conundrum for standard physics hidden in positron-electron annihilation btw, but I won't expand on that here). Point is, anti-gravitation of anti-particle idea fundamentally conflicts with the expectation of conserved net gravitational mass. 3: According to the vixra article you cited earlier: http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf , anti-particle anti-gravitation has a very strange character. Anti-particles repel both ordinary particles AND other anti-particles. Which is equivalent to claiming negatively charged particles repel each other and attract positively charged particles (what actually occurs), but positively charged particles attract negatively charged AND other positively charged particles (which does NOT occur). Hence there is imo no logical consistency to what that author posits. It leads to bizarre runaway scenarios. 4: The standard picture requires BSM physics to cope with the observed ~ 1 to 10^10 ratio between matter particle and photon numbers. Which outcome implies a slight asymmetry between particle and anti-particle annihilation in the very early universe. As posited by voids = anti-matter regions scenario, there is actually a perfect net balance between matter and anti-matter in current universe. But there simply was no chance for gravity to appreciably separate matter from anti-matter in the early hot BB. Either total annihilation to radiation occurred if there was no BSM annihilation asymmetry, or you have the standard picture of an entirely matter over anti-matter dominated matter content. It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.
  12. 1 point
    Full of water would be best - no fumes. A kid died using a plasma torch on a recycled empty drum despite it being rinsed out.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    I got that. Coffeesippin, obviously didn't. There are a great many people who maybe should have got Nobel Prizes but didn't. Often for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. However, as far as I know, no one has ever received a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis that hasn't been confirmed. Which is almost certainly the reason that Jordan never got one for this idea. Whether he should have got one for his other work ...who knows. There are a limited number of prizes and an almost unlimited number of deserving recipients. But while this might be an interesting discussion, we are getting off topic and if we are not careful, the mods will tell us off! (It might be an interesting topic for another thread: who'd should have got Nobels and why didn't they...)
  15. 1 point
    He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was.is no more then a possible hypothetical situation. I replied that Einstein missed the Nobel for the obvious work and listed some of the possible reasons why that happened in Einstein's case...One was anti semitism among other possible reasons I supplied in an article.
  16. 1 point
    Well, I don't know much more detail I'm afraid. There will be circuitry on the chip as well as the mechanical structures. They will control the vibration of the mechanism and, presumably, charge the capacitors to measure the changing capcatince value. But I don't know exactly how they do that (without trying to find a detailed data sheet of the device).
  17. 1 point
    Interpreting the hidden meaning behind a person's statements is a fool's errand. His comments could have been exactly the same whether he is innocent or guilty. No matter what he says, some will believe him, some will not. Some will think it is thoughtful, some will think he is being aggressive. Some will find him credible, some will not. Discussing whether or not we believe him or what his intentions are may be an enjoyable pastime, but we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that after a long discussion we will be any closer to knowing the truth.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    Proof is absolute. You can do that in math, where you can take a premise and a set of rules, and apply them. In science, the process is inductive. More than one explanation might be consistent with the evidence, but we won't know until more evidence is obtained. Such as with phlogiston — worked with preliminary data, but then evidence was uncovered that was inconsistent with the model. It is the job of scientists to try and exclude all but one explanation, but there's always the chance that the known science is incomplete, and there is more science to be revealed. Such as happened with relativity and quantum mechanics. However, there is a point at which you have to concede that it is exceedingly unlikely that a model is wrong, owing to all the evidence in support of it. It is similar to Stephen Jay Gould's description of "fact" In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
  20. 0 points
    Two electric cars ? Have you priced a Tesla model S ? Maybe the American and Canadian governments should have given money to Tesla instead of bailing out those idiots at GM. Teslas would have been cheaper and a whole lot of people wouldn't be losing their jobs.
  21. 0 points
  22. -1 points
    You are wrong. Evidence and proof used in science are not necessary 'scientific'. The meaning of evidence and proof changes depending on the context the words are used in.
  23. -1 points
    We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein. What's the process for blocking participants? BeeCee is entirely unacceptable to me for many good reasons. Never mind .. I found the Ignore User function, and used it.
  24. -1 points
    Why is it not surprising? A VERY short time has passed since Voids were advertised as being mere empty space. This link http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/gigantic-voids-are-expanding-and-shrinking/ says perhaps gravity is making some voids larger, but that would work only if the Void WAS mere empty space, and the void would be lopsided on the enlarged side, like an egg perhaps , whereas they're described as roughly spherical. For the Void to remain spherical when pulled, it would have to be dynamic, like a soap bubble in the air, not empty space. Why would voids be dynamic if not constructed of something? Anti-matter not only filling the Void but expanding it answers those questions, but explains why our local group appears to be moving twice as fast as gravity explanation alone allows. https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/ What do you see voids capable of pushing a group of galaxies as being constructed of?
  25. -1 points
    You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered. Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. But since all scientist agree, which they do not you accept bogus unverified evidence