1. ## koti

Senior Members

4

2960

2. ## zapatos

Senior Members

3

4822

3. ## Eise

Senior Members

3

1452

Moderators

1

45050

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/10/20 in all areas

1. 3 points

## the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

Do not forget that also in the physical 4D-world, the time dimension does not stand on equal footing with the space dimensions. Pythagoras in spacetime is: x2 + y2 + z2 - (ct)2 = d2 Note the minus-sign. So in some sense we experience a 4D world: we need 4 coordinates to define the spacetime location of events. But time- and space dimensions do not behave exactly the same.
2. 1 point

## the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

What do you mean by "experience"? I experience the four dimensions. Three of them visually. The fourth, not the same way.
3. 1 point

## Impeachment Hearings

We kind of got off track... Trump's been impeached for less...(JC making his best attempt to segue back onto the rails...)
4. 1 point

5. 1 point

## the mind + 4D-spacetime = the experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment in the actual moment by an observer

I’m a little sceptical as to the anisotropic theories, as I understand it Wheeler, Hawking and others are refering to strong and weak anisotropic principals in a philosophical manner in contexts involving BB and plausible explanations of it. I have to admit that I don’t understand a lot of what Wheeler is/was saying related to this, I read some Wheeler about 20 years ago and it was too much for me, I will have to come back to it. Whenever we observe something on a cosmic scale, we always see the past due to relativity, we never see the present. In this line of thinking which is confirmed by Einsteins relativity, we never have access to the present when dealing with cosmic scales.
6. -1 points

## Few Questions

Science? co2 has not been "studied well." Computer models are art, not science. There is absolutely no theoretical way to estimate the contribution of co2 to the GHE, and all "science" today is based on correlations. Check the correlation of [co2] vs temps for the period 1950 -1980 : negative, ie increased co2 must lead to cooling, if you're willing to equate correlation with cause & effect....The GHG Effect is theoretical with zero experimental evidence to support (or reject) it. [h2o] differences small? Compare deserts to rain forest please. Compare cloudy days & nites to cloudless. Of course there ae huge differences and huge effects......My point about anecdotes is that young people are no longer educated in school, but indoctrinated. They fail to question the teachings of the masters even when those run contrary to their own experiences. That's called belief on faith alone-- the very definition of religion and antithetical to science. .Again, check that energy budget graph posted above and find the absorption spectra of the various atm gases: ….O2 & n2 are 99% of the atm and its ave. temp is `288degK. They can only be warmed from 0 deg to 288 by absorption of visible light or by conduction from the heat of the surface, and there isn't that much energy subtracted by the O & N from the sunlight. Most of their temp is gained by conduction-- a fact miscalculated by the Kiehl & Trenberth study because it wouldn't fit the narrative to say otherwise. Error bars. Find an honest site that shows the historical temp records with error bars. You can draw a straight horizontal line and remain within the error bars throughout its course, ie-- statistically no differences in temps "measured" by proxy, at least after the great warming that occurred 12-15000 y/a or for the geologic record going back to the Cambrian... ..Check the temp record for the last 2000 yrs: a total range of only 1 degC. Using the often stated approximation of 1 SD is about 1/4th of the range of measurements, then no temps fall outside +/- 2 SD of the average, ie-- ~ 67% chance that all temp changes for the period are due merely to random variation about the mean. Before we let dictatorial govt regulations force us to return to an 1880s lifestyle with an inability to feed 7.5B people at a cost estimated to be \$4 QUADrillion (that's 50x the Gross WORLD Product), we probably ought to make sure we have the science right....and we're not even close to that.
×