beecee

Are you really serious?? I mean you can go on claiming and/or deniering evolution till the cows come home, but really all you are doing is pushing shit uphill: try it Evolution is as near fact as any theory can be, and neither you nor anyone else have even come close to discrediting it with evidence....all talk my man, nothing more, nothing less..... I actually believe he and most others, including me are just trying to help you from making yourself look less then scientific. Hmmm, please correct me if I am wrong, but I do remember you claiming to be a chemist.....am I wrong? I mean I am happy to be wrong, as your posts certainly reflect that you do not have any scientific credentials of any colour..

While I do agree with all that you have said, and I believe I have expressed that generally speaking, it does piss me off no end when "pretenders" and those with religious or other agendas, start to deride some of our prominent science communicators. But then again those same pretenders deride all of science in most cases, even the certainty of the evolution of life.

I have been an active member on three science forums....this one, one that is now defunct, and another that I left on my own accord, due to the lack of scientific discipline. On all those forums reference sometimes is made about "pop science", sometimes in less then complimentary ways. As a lay person, now a retired Maintenance Fitter and Machinist, I was always interested in space and astronomy....I followed the USSR and USA NASA cold war space race religiously, and still remember as a ten year old, going outside at night and watching Sputnik cross the celestial sphere. I watched all the Moon shots and three programs that enabled man to set foot on the Moon..... Later, in the early seventies, I watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which spiked my interest in SR, GR and cosmology in general. Since then I have read many books by many reputable authors such as Hawking, Sir Martin Rees, Kip Thorne, Paul Davis, Michio Kaku and others also. I get slightly miffed when people refer to texts or definitions as "only pop science. I therefor decided to google, "what is pop science"? All basically say the same thing...... https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pop science&oq=pop science&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7463j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=what is pop science "Popular science (or pop-science) is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves". What limited knowledge that I have gained, all started from what may be construed as pop science: In areas where I personally required a more in depth description or definition, I would always check with known reputable scientists and/or science papers from arXiv...What I didn't understand I asked questions about. The first forum I participated in, did have a astronomer and a GR theoriest that sorted me out. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "pop science" is far more important then some seem to give it credit for. The Sagan's the De Grasse Tysons, the Greenes' the Cox's, the Dawkin's of this world are doing a job and getting the message out there...They are making ground in delivering how we can reasonably claim how the universe came to be, at least from the BB, how life first arose from inanimate matter, and how that life evolved to us. I also found this link......... http://www.xojane.com/issues/pop-science-may-be-annoying-but-its-necessary "Why Pop Science Is Important, Even If You Don't Think It's "Real Science" An important line from that link I believe definitely holds true...... "While “fake science fans” may be annoying, science deniers are deadly". This forum as well as others are graced by both types, one notable "science denier" that in very recent times is making his crusade on this forum. It is these types that will purposely set out to denigrate the likes of Sagan and Dawkins, and the others I mentioned and their agenda of course is the fact that science seems to have demoted the need of a creator. Most obviously also are rather self gratutious, do not possess appropriate credentials, but rather, as I said an agenda. The article concludes with the following....... "Pop Science is great stuff! Pop science is essential to the general populace. Yes, sometimes science journalists indulge in sensationalism [such as Hawking said BH's do not exist] sensationalism that is generally recognised for what it is by those truly interested in science, but quickly grabbed hold of by the fraudsters and phoneys when they see the need to, particularly when the said article refutes there own brand of science. So yes, the furphy that "it is only pop science" is just that: a furphy. Hoorah for pop science!" Do others agree with the sentiments of what I am trying to say? Anyone want to add anything?

Why not put the forum on ignore? Where I come from we call that spitting the dummy.

Ignore list? I'm flattered. All any member or guest need to do is check any of your posts, and the delusions of grandeur within, the irony of your generally false unsupported claims, the hypocrisy of those same claims, the strong smell of false indignation whenever some one takes you to task, the general insults to the forum as a whole and the members, science, scientists, and what are we really left with? In my opinion, a god bothering fanatic, obsessed with the fact that his deity of choice has been pushed into near oblivion. The WRATH of Khan is upon us!

In answer to the question in the OP, no one ever stops learning, irrespective of the emotional, and false indignation that some like to display when their own thoughts/opinions are critically reviewed and inevitable shown to be wanting, by other learned people. Plain emotional dismissive, agenda driven crap. Yes. Many people see science and obviously scientists as evil in attempting to explain reasonably logically, how the universe came to be, how life arose and how we evolved. That displaces there own agenda of ID as it most certainly contains no science. Bingo! An astute observation!

That certainly puts it more descriptively then I did. Nice.

Ahaa! Playing the victim card again I see. Why then do you waste your time here? Oh that's right, you said yesterday you will ignore me. Oh the pain of it all! Again the only thing obvious is your false indignation and delusions of grandeur, that sensible people are daring to question what you suggest and of course your obvious motives and agenda. Let me say it again..... What truly is amazing though, is how any person, can logically believe that environmental orginizations, obviously with limited funds and finance, are somehow in collusion with 97% of the world's scientists, to falsify scientific data, to reflect a possible forthcoming dooms day scenario: Or possibly the giant Oil companies and other dependent allied multinationals, are spending a portion of their ever increasing record profits, to pay right wing groups to vilify, down play the scientific data and in more cases then not, just plainly lie about something that may subtract from the same record profits. [from post 35]

What you claim in post 43, and about who it refers to, seems to be evidence supporting the link in the study in the opening post. His actions/posts/insults and obvious crusade fits the bill imo.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Climate change: How do we know? This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site). The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1 Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3 Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4 Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise Global temperature rise The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 6 Warming oceans The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.7 Shrinking ice sheets The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ignoring the non scientific propaganda from questionable sites, the above facts support what most now consider to be our greatest problem. I saw a while back a doco called "Chasing Ice" https://chasingice.com/ Some short videos and glimpses of this awe inspiring photography and incredible experimental science. If you havn't seen the full doco, I suggest you do now. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: What truly is amazing though, is how any person, can logically believe that environmental orginizations, obviously with limited funds and finance, are somehow in collusion with 97% of the world's scientists, to falsify scientific data, to reflect a possible forthcoming dooms day scenario: Or possibly the giant Oil companies and other dependent allied multinationals, are spending a portion of their ever increasing record profits, to pay right wing groups to vilify, down play the scientific data and in more cases then not, just plainly lie about something that may subtract from the same record profits.

Actually your comments on the other comment, being observationally factual, support the link suggested in the OP.

As a Lay Person, my Interests in science was peaked by "pop science" presenters such as Carl Sagan, but wanting to learn more I began reading all manner of scientific literature including Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" and Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman's "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" among many others by reputable recognised scientific authors. BTW, I see Carl Sagan as one of the greatest educators of our time. Probably many reasons including Sagan's video suggesting that any deity was superfluous, and the general achievements of science into pushing any need for any deity into near oblivion. That in my opinion stands out in all of the posts of the person in discussion. Hence the knight in shining armour crusade he is conducting. On climate change, again, I'll say that with regards to any doubt, [if that doubt exists] as to the validity of the models detailing human responsibility for climate change, that it would be prudent to err, [if indeed we were going to err] on the side of caution. At this stage though, I do not believe enough doubt based on science exists. Human induced climate change is happening.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Magicians? Religion?

Nothing vague in anything I have said, nor any misquotes, and most actually well documented in your so far 29 posts on this forum. And of course whether you ignore me or not is really entirely up to you. I certainly though will continue to comment on pseudoscientific claims, religious propaganda, and anti science crusades that some like to carry out.

And our obsessed hypocritical knight in shining armour bravely rides on, determined to rid the world of Atheism, evil leftists, and all manner of other god/magic spaghetti monster deniers! Science is a discipline in continued progress.....Lord Kelvin an otherwise great scientist, was wrong....as was Fred Hoyle. Your science lesson for the day is that as science [whether you and your ilk, like it or not] continues to push back the need for any magical spaghetti monster, incumbent theories will be modified, added on to, and in some cases, discarded. That's science young fella! That's why science at this time can give a reasonable good description of the evolution of the universe from 10-43 seconds after the initial event.... Einstein also rejected BHs...but of course Einstein did not have the observational data at his finger tips to indicate otherwise...He also rejected universal expansion, despite the fact that the greatest theory of gravity, GR was telling him exactly that.

Well for a start some of your own claims can be classed as pseudoscience at best. But generally it can be recognised by the following points. * Unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding words. * Relying and repeating "hear say" and so called personal accounts...or relying on anecdotal evidence in the main. * Ignoring and failing to accept well supported and evidenced based scientific fact/s. * Claiming that which is unable to be shown to be false. * Claims that scientific theories are not proof, and the often repeated phrase "prove it". That and probably many more I suggest.

Ahh now I see...with reference to your other crusade. This study seems to have really miffed you somewhat. In fact they are scientific studies, irrespective of how or why such studies may upset you. Calm down and take it easy, this afterall is first and foremost a science forum and we have no pulpit for any anti Atheistic or god bothering crusades that you may wish to push.

Wow!!! May I ask who or what prompted you on this and other baseless assertions and your general obvious evangelisitc crusade against science, the evil left and the rest of us evil godless bastards since you started here! Let me also ask, you as one who believes in fantasies and other nonsense, why do you come here preaching your brand of fairy tales? And why do you not have the decency and courage to post in the correct section? I mean I would never go to a church on a Sunday and start yelling and screaming about the mythical nonsense they are going on with. So what prompts you? Are you promised 42 Virgins in the next life? Or are you just plainly upset that science and the scientific method has pushed any need for any deity into near oblivion? Let me put you straight on some points. The theory of the evolution of life is as much a certainty as any theory can be...We can say it is a fact....Abiogenesis also is the only scientific answer to how life got started, as is a Universe from basically nothing. While accepting all that, you need to realise that there is absolutely no evidence for any magical spaghetti monster and any other supernatural being. Even the Catholic church has had the courage to admit that the theory of evolution and the BB are on solid ground.

A shame and a pity that the obvious stands out clearly...that being of course your political agenda. Let's put things right again, as opposed to your Trump like, "stuff you Jack, I'm alright" mentality. Climate change is and does naturally take place......Scientific Evidence world wide and over many years has shown that human activity is responsible for at least a percentage of that change.......Even if there is a small chance that the evidence is inconclusive or wrong, the stakes are such that it would and is far more prudent to err on the side of caution. Now isn't that more logical then your own politically inspired, hysterical agenda?

Let me add to the excellent reply by the previous poster, even if there was any doubt as to the accuracy and validity of human induced climate change, I would say that it would be far more better to err on the side of caution, considering what is at stake.

Tar, with all due respects to Mordred who obviously has answered your query in complete fashion, imo things have now got over complicated....From post 1, the question was asked, thus...... "Any distortion of the arms in the direction of the waves will not be detected because that arm(s) will be distorted to exactly the same degree that space itself is distorted. Help"? And that most certainly has been answered with many links including from aLIGO, illustrating how and why the questioner was simply wrong with his inference from the outset. And as others have noted, it seems to now have become a religious like conviction with him, in the face of overwhelming data that says otherwise. I have seen this type of rock hard contrariness many times elsewhere. Facts...the experiment was successful....GWs were discovered three times from three varying size BH mergers, each resulting in a unique signature....Einstein's GR was once again, further shown to be correct within its field of applicability.

No your wrong because you have interpreted it wrong as many have informed you, and after the recent links and answer from the horses mouth so to speak, you still refuse to accept the answer and your total misrepresentation and misinterpretation. Again despite your repeated denial. The aLIGO does not measure expansion and or contraction as you interpret and envisage, rather it measures undulations/waves. It does not measure any change in the speed of light as that is a constant and does not change. The three detection events were all each unique...one near massive BHs merging, one with stellar stellar sized BHs and the other Intermediate size, all at different distances and each with their own distinctive chirp. And finally the answer/s as given by my link here.... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq As others have now suggested, [it was answered as far back as post 3] it appears your refusal to accept that you were and are wrong, maybe due to an agenda of sorts or possibly just delusions of grandeur. Whatever the reasons, you still have the choice to confront aLIGO with your imaginary find, something which so far you have ignored. No I did not misunderstand...you did not think it through. Your invalid balloon analogy and expansion, is only concerned with even/constant expansion over all of the balloon...GWs as I said are undulations that vary over time and distance.

It appears the whole world has misunderstood your point All I need do is refer you back to all the answers you have been given and particularly the aLIGO answer above. You are wrong, whether you accept that or not makes no difference to what most reputable professionals and lay people alike now accept, based on the observational evidence.

And of course the third point you have failed to address, is why the three GW detections so far have all been BH mergers, but each detection is/was unique in distances from us, the sizes of the BH's and I would hazard a guess, the size of the chirp or noise.... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq Q: If a gravitational wave stretches the distance between the LIGO mirrors, doesn't it also stretch the wavelength of the laser light? A: A gravitational wave does stretch and squeeze the wavelength of the light in the arms. But the interference pattern doesn't come about because of the difference between the length of the arm and the wavelength of the light. Instead it's caused by the different arrival time of the light wave's "crests and troughs" from one arm with the arrival time of the light that traveled in the other arm. To get how this works, it is also important to know that gravitational waves do NOT change the speed of light. With that in mind, imagine now that you and a friend want to compare how long it takes you to drive to the end of the interferometer arms and back. Just like LIGO's laser light waves, you leave the corner station at exactly the same time, take different paths, and travel at precisely the same speed. You expect to meet up again at the same time. But if a gravitational wave passes while you are on your journey, one of you will end up traveling down the longer arm, and one of you will travel down the shorter arm. Since you're still going the same speed, one of you will take longer to return than the other! The arrival times change because when the arms of the interferometer change lengths, so too do the distances the light waves travel before exiting the interferometer. What gravitational waves do not change, however, is the speed of light. This means that a wave of light that happens to be in a longer arm during a gravitational wave has to travel farther before exiting, so it takes longer to leave than the beam that was in the shorter arm. The light waves no longer match up when they exit, so they interfere with each other. The laser light acts not as a ruler, but as a stopwatch. But what if suddenly the length of one path got longer while the other route got shorter? One of you would have to travel a little farther and take longer to reach your destination than the other; you would no longer arrive at the same time! Furthermore, by precisely measuring the difference in arrival times, and knowing your rates of speed, you could actually calculate how much farther or less far you each had to drive in order to arrive when you did Correct as detailed above in aLIGO questionare. WRONG, the speed of light does not change ever....as detailed on the aLIGO questionare and a multitide of previous answers,

I have certainly seen closeted god botherers of various denominations, rage on in denial about GR and GWs and much of science in general elsewhere: The fact that science and GR have virtually eliminated any need for a deity, annoys them no end. Only to your own satisfaction. aLIGO is not about expansion and/or contraction, it's about the warping/waving and undulations in spacetime we call GW. But you continue to ignore that. Yet it is you who keeps repeating invalid conclusions despite being given answers and many links, and of course the other point you are not apparently game enough to address, that is to E-Mail aLIGO for some real hands on data on why you are wrong. Until you do that, it appears you are not interested in answers that divert away from your own invalid interpretation.