swansont

One implication of that is that terrorism must be a conspiracy, and as such, an individual acting alone cannot be a terrorist. I don't think that's a good dividing line. The unabomber was not a terrorist by this definition, yet under a more common use of the term he was. The beltway snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, were not part of a recognized terrorist group, yet what they did was deemed terrorism (in at least one trial), and I can say from personal experience that I agree — I live within walking distance of one of the attacks. It was a frantic three weeks. But this definition only moves the problem a step back. Why is a radical sub-group (as part of a larger ideological movement) that kills people not recognized as a terror group?

Science, unlike some other pursuits, will not scoff and proclaim, "You do not exist!" if it finds something that truly violated an existing law. We don't rewrite the facts, we rewrite the laws. (see e.g. quantum mechanics and relativity)

Neither do I, but that's not the point. The point is the author has embraced fringe concepts, and does not represent the mainstream view of physics.

YT has discussed this somewhere, and I've done it, with a webcam. Many CCD viewfinders also lack an IR filter, allowing you to detect IR which doesn't end up in the picture. Some cellphone cameras have poor filters, too.

There would be light. And the "quantum foam" from the zero-point fluctuations.

"All physicists agree" is not a reasonable standard. Don't shift the burden of proof. That some physicists discuss the role of consciousness is not the same as saying it is a significant, contested and debated topic within the physics community. A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals doesn't fit the bill. I's also like to note that contains contradictory statements. The two cannot be equal if one does not include the other. The former was never asserted.

That was never asserted. What was explained was that any interaction counted as an observation. But the tone of the subsequent argument was that consciousness was required for any observation ("No consciousness means no observation"), and that this topic was an active debate among the physics community. It isn't, and it's not. No, what I question is someone purportedly establishing the QM behind a phenomenon that has never been confirmed experimentally, the author's claims notwithstanding (I'll have to check out his references to see if he's just misrepresenting them. Somehow I doubt that a Nature paper confirms telepathy). As with my note about "revised quantum dynamics" — building one hypothesis upon another hypothesis is truly shaky ground. This author repeatedly references himself as if one conjecture is true, and more likely than not is just building a house of cards.

Well, alternately your model would have other forcings present, making CO2 less important. I'm not conversant enough with the details of the models.

Got anything besides word salad?

I thought your claim was that interaction requires consciousness. This paper is a theory paper — at the end it suggests some experiments, very vague suggestions at that, on how to test it. IOW, there's no evidence of anything. "Here we mainly discuss the possible quantum effects of consciousness in the framework of revised quantum dynamics" where RQD is admittedly an alternative to quantum theory. So what you have is something based on alternative interpretations that has no experimental confirmation. This hardly rises to the level of a debate. The author also cites himself an awful lot, and publishes alone, which are warning signs of crackpottery. You might want to check out some of his other work, like "A Primary Quantum Model of Telepathy" Cite him at your own risk.

Bearing in mind that things were different in the past needs to be applied to all of the argument, though. I can imagine a feedback forcing haveing a different value if e.g. the albedo were different, which is probably the case when you rearrange the continents. Which means that showing that "CO2 are not as closely coupled as we think" is an invalid statement. It would mean that CO2 was not as strong a forcing in the past. Has anybody studied this and come up with a number? But if it is different, then all arguments based on the past values are moot. Showing a logarithmic relation on a linear graph is deceptive. Yes, it can be done, just like showing a linear relation on a log plot can be done. But it shouldn't be done — it's misleading.

One would hope that you would make the same compensation for the demodulation as for the frequency of the transmission.

If the question means can mirrors reflect IR, the answer is yes. Depending on the wavelength and mirror type you may need a special coating on the mirror to do so with high efficiency. Dielectric mirrors in my lab are coated for broadband NIR, basically from 700 - 1000 nm, for reflectivity >95% or so. We also have some gold mirrors that reflect reasonable well in that range. UV, on the other hand, is a lot tougher to do with high reflectivity. As gonelli points out, though, it won't make the invisible visible.

The long run isn't the pressing issue. How we deal with what happens over then next generation or two is of a more immediate concern.

Why must it be true? Matter isn't the same as energy. Conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries. Conservation of energy stems from time symmetry — the laws don't change in time.

If the measurement is of the parameter that is entangled. A different measurement need not break the entanglement.

This is a classic misdirection, using percentages to mask the argument, on top of the outright lying. First, I'll address the lie: Water is included in the models. To claim otherwise is blatant dishonesty. Water is not included in the list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases because it isn't considered one. Water concentration doesn't vary all that much, when looking that the global average — there is a limited amount the atmosphere can hold, and the residence time is short. Water vapor tends to condense on nucleation sits and fall back to the earth as macroscopic collections, as you are no doubt aware. The forcings that are considered are from anthropogenic gases that can change in concentration, not the natural ones that won't. Now, the misdirection: GHGs are dismissed because they only comprise a fraction of a percent of the whole, and the implication is that a small effect can be ignored, because the effect must be huge. Bull. Look at the numbers given by both iNow and bascule early in this thread, or from ref 1 of your link The forcings are of order a watt, while the sun gives us more than a kilowatt, per m^2. So the effects are less than a percent change in the incoming energy. But 1 Watt/m^2 is more than 10^14 Watts over the exposed surface of the earth. By expressing the numbers as a percentage, it makes a significant effect look insignificant. Now that we have the numbers, you have the task of explaining how trapping an extra 10^14 Watts will have no effect on the planet's temperature.

Yes indeed. (Squaring/rooting mis-key, or I looked at the wrong calculation) v = 0.99995c However, algebra aside, the concept is the important thing here. Nothing had to exceed c for this scenario to happen.

Some of us are trying to have an adult discussion here. If you can't keep it on-topic, please re-think your decision to post. Take the banter, etc., to general discussion

Thy system is nonlinear. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic (at least at the current concentrations) and blackbody radiation varies as T^4. So linearly increasing concentrations represent a diminishing increase in forcing, and rising temperatures radiate proportionally more energy. So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature.

Newtonian gravity is not "completely wrong." It is far less wrong than the Bohr model, which basically only gets the energy correct. Newtonian gravity is valid until you get into relativistic effects. The Bohr model is wrong as soon as you look at any parameter other than energy. A pull is a force and is not the same as energy. In neither case does the object in question have enough energy to escape; both represent bound systems. Increasing the energy does not necessarily move you further away. That assumes a circular orbit in the planetary case. And s orbitals overlap with the nucleus, and can have a higher energy than other orbitals.

No, that is the nature of the interpretations of QM. One problem being that interpretations are basically an attempt to explain QM using a framework of familiar, classical concepts. But there is evidence for these phenomenon. The problem with the QM/consciousness connection is that if you move the parameters around enough, as has happened here (the detector not being conscious vs. the detector being placed by a conscious being) then it's not falsifiable. The only way that we can confirm the result of an experiment is to look at it, so there will always be a path to where consciousness was involved. So if that's the contention, then game over. Not falsifiable = not science. But the framework where e.g. the electron "knows" that the interaction is from a detector which was placed by a conscious being vs. just being some stray field is not part of QM.

It's perfectly fine to model objects as points — e.g. in Gauss's law, you can show that you get the exact same answer as with the uniform sphere. However, I suppose that there are aspects to models you can make that would get you into trouble — using the infinite density of a point-object might be one. But as long as you don't try to exploit that, you should be fine. Similar to what Sisyphus said — there are ways of telling whether she is a witch an approximation is reasonable. Once it isn't, you can't use the results from your model.

Except that model is very wrong — "not completely correct" is underselling it. Electrons do not move in planetary orbits.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.