Remember me
▼ Content

Basic arithmetic



Page 3 of 4<1234>
21-09-2016 17:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's apply to bodies and all gases/atmosphere included.

It doesn't matter how many times you assert this: reality doesn't agree with you. Emission spectra exist.

It doesn't matter how much you deny it, it still kills your "greenhouse effect" miracle.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 17:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's apply to bodies and all gases/atmosphere included.

It doesn't matter how many times you assert this: reality doesn't agree with you. Emission spectra exist.

It doesn't matter how much you deny it, it still kills your "greenhouse effect" miracle.

Do you understand what an emission spectrum is, and why the fact that they exist shows that gases don't follow Planck's law?
21-09-2016 18:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
Surface Detail wrote: Do you understand what an emission spectrum is, and why the fact that they exist shows that gases don't follow Planck's law?

I use the term "signature" myself but no, I don't see how Planck's law somehow does not apply.

Remember, you and I have been through this. You point to a greybody that doesn't have the same signature as an ideal blackbody and say "See, it differs." Then you refuse to listen to why your graph is exactly as it should be.

Anyway, are you looking to rehash that same discussion? If so, throw up your chart and let's have at it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 18:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Do you understand what an emission spectrum is, and why the fact that they exist shows that gases don't follow Planck's law?

I use the term "signature" myself but no, I don't see how Planck's law somehow does not apply.

Remember, you and I have been through this. You point to a greybody that doesn't have the same signature as an ideal blackbody and say "See, it differs." Then you refuse to listen to why your graph is exactly as it should be.

Anyway, are you looking to rehash that same discussion? If so, throw up your chart and let's have at it.

It you don't understand the difference between the emission spectrum of a gas and blackbody emission, then you really need to do some reading. I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in basic physics. In the UK, this is taught at school science level to 15-year-olds. I suggest you kick off by googling "line spectrum".
21-09-2016 18:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)




One is black body radiation. One is emission spectra of gases. Can you tell the difference?
21-09-2016 19:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
Surface Detail wrote: I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in basic physics. In the UK, this is taught at school science level to 15-year-olds. I suggest you kick off by googling "line spectrum".

Let's back up a step. How do you use this to account for the additional energy required by "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature?

Just use the basic physics taught in the UK to 15-year-olds.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 20:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If the energy that goes to space is partially blocked, with some of it returning to Earth, then that increases the amount of radiation hitting Earth. This increases temperature, just like putting food under a hot lamp heats it up.
21-09-2016 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If the energy that goes to space is partially blocked, with some of it returning to Earth, then that increases the amount of radiation hitting Earth. This increases temperature, just like putting food under a hot lamp heats it up.


HUH???


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 21:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't understand Jwood! I know! That means he's stupid!

Here's a more verbose explanation:

"Energy radiates from the Earth's surface. With no atmosphere, none of this energy returns. If there is an atmosphere with GHG, some of the energy is absorbed by the GHGs and radiated back to Earth. Since inflow exceeds outflow, the temperature increases."

It's like a partially clogged bathtub. Less outflow means higher water level. Water still flows down, just more slowly.
21-09-2016 22:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Anyway, EVASION ALERT

Once Into's insistence that Planck's Law applies to gases is unsupportable, he jumps back to "how does that matter anyway," even though he doesn't have anything else to "kill" the evil Liberal Science-spawned field with!
22-09-2016 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't understand Jwood! I know! That means he's stupid!

Here's a more verbose explanation:

"Energy radiates from the Earth's surface. With no atmosphere, none of this energy returns. If there is an atmosphere with GHG, some of the energy is absorbed by the GHGs and radiated back to Earth. Since inflow exceeds outflow, the temperature increases."

It's like a partially clogged bathtub. Less outflow means higher water level. Water still flows down, just more slowly.


This is just the Magick Blanket argument again.

There is no drain of limited size. All of space around Earth is the 'drain'.

You are trying to warm the surface by forcing energy UP the 'drain', then claiming it all flows down the 'drain'.

You are trying to violate the 2nd LoT. You are building a paradox doing it.

ANY increase in the temperature of the surface means energy will flow FASTER to space, not slower.

The ONLY way to increase the temperature of the globe (or anything else) is to add energy to do it.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't understand Jwood! I know! That means he's stupid!

Here's a more verbose explanation:

"Energy radiates from the Earth's surface. With no atmosphere, none of this energy returns. If there is an atmosphere with GHG, some of the energy is absorbed by the GHGs and radiated back to Earth. Since inflow exceeds outflow, the temperature increases."

It's like a partially clogged bathtub. Less outflow means higher water level. Water still flows down, just more slowly.


This is just the Magick Blanket argument again.

There is no drain of limited size. All of space around Earth is the 'drain'.

You are trying to warm the surface by forcing energy UP the 'drain', then claiming it all flows down the 'drain'.

You are trying to violate the 2nd LoT. You are building a paradox doing it.

ANY increase in the temperature of the surface means energy will flow FASTER to space, not slower.

The ONLY way to increase the temperature of the globe (or anything else) is to add energy to do it.

The concept of insulation is apparently alien to you.
22-09-2016 00:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...what? Oh, I see! Why didn't you say that before?

I have switched between looking at the inflow/outflow of the Earth system and the inflow/outflow of the Earth's surface without explaining the switch. Thanks for telling me that.

But your argument isn't actually a refutation - we're looking at the overall heat inflow/outflow. We can do this because thermodynamics is a good tool for macroscopic aggregates. The GHG reduce the outflow without reducing the inflow. They do this by absorbing some of the outgoing radiation, and radiating some of that back down to Earth. We can actually measure this, since the radiation from the atmosphere is at wavelengths that the Sun doesn't really radiate at. (Also, night-time exists.) The measurements show that some, not all, and definitely not more, of the radiation leaving the Earth returns. If it returns, it means it didn't leave (obviously), so the outgoing energy has decreased. The incoming energy is at wavelengths that GHG simply don't interact with, so they don't affect it in any way. (Ozone does affect UV light, but that's beside the point.)

If you're so convinced that the radiation passing through an atmosphere is not altered in any way, how do you explain the drop here?



Increasing the temperature of the surface will increase the outflow, yes. But then the outflow is decreased by the GHG before it reaches space, so a higher-temperature macroscopic thermodynamic equilibrium is reached.

The only two ways to increase the temperature of anything are to increase the energy inflow or to decrease the energy outflow.
22-09-2016 02:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
jwoodward48 wrote:Who shows things to be false?

Usually someone who is breathing. I believe that is the only requirement.

jwoodward48 wrote:The scientists! Consensus is reached when most scientists relevant to a field agree that a model is reached.

You are clueless.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 02:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, I'd love it if everybody could do their own meta-analyses, but that's just not the case. Science is done better by professionals than by amateurs, anyway; that's not to say that amateurs cannot point out errors, but that such a thing happening would be incredibly unlikely.
22-09-2016 04:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
jwoodward48 wrote:; that's not to say that amateurs cannot point out errors, but that such a thing happening would be incredibly unlikely.

What would you know of such a likelihood?

You're a leftist. You know how hard it is to build something but how easy it is to tear it down. ANYONE can go to work on falsifying a model. In fact, I bet you could find Marxists who will do it pro bono.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 04:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
My political stance is irrelevant. Jabs at it are ignored.

I think that the entire field of climate science is unlikely to be disproved by someone shouting "but Planck's Law applies to everything!", especially since it doesn't. Besides, I was stating the relative likelihood of an amateur vs an expert disproving something. Trust me, if a scientist finds an error in another scientist's paper, they don't just "overlook it to be friendly."
22-09-2016 11:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't understand Jwood! I know! That means he's stupid!

Here's a more verbose explanation:

"Energy radiates from the Earth's surface. With no atmosphere, none of this energy returns. If there is an atmosphere with GHG, some of the energy is absorbed by the GHGs and radiated back to Earth. Since inflow exceeds outflow, the temperature increases."

It's like a partially clogged bathtub. Less outflow means higher water level. Water still flows down, just more slowly.


This is just the Magick Blanket argument again.

There is no drain of limited size. All of space around Earth is the 'drain'.

You are trying to warm the surface by forcing energy UP the 'drain', then claiming it all flows down the 'drain'.

You are trying to violate the 2nd LoT. You are building a paradox doing it.

ANY increase in the temperature of the surface means energy will flow FASTER to space, not slower.

The ONLY way to increase the temperature of the globe (or anything else) is to add energy to do it.

The concept of insulation is apparently alien to you.

The inapplicability of it is apparently not any concern to you. Oh well...sucks to be you.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 11:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? Oh, I see! Why didn't you say that before?

I have switched between looking at the inflow/outflow of the Earth system and the inflow/outflow of the Earth's surface without explaining the switch. Thanks for telling me that.

But your argument isn't actually a refutation - we're looking at the overall heat inflow/outflow. We can do this because thermodynamics is a good tool for macroscopic aggregates. The GHG reduce the outflow without reducing the inflow. They do this by absorbing some of the outgoing radiation, and radiating some of that back down to Earth. We can actually measure this, since the radiation from the atmosphere is at wavelengths that the Sun doesn't really radiate at. (Also, night-time exists.) The measurements show that some, not all, and definitely not more, of the radiation leaving the Earth returns. If it returns, it means it didn't leave (obviously), so the outgoing energy has decreased. The incoming energy is at wavelengths that GHG simply don't interact with, so they don't affect it in any way. (Ozone does affect UV light, but that's beside the point.)

If you're so convinced that the radiation passing through an atmosphere is not altered in any way, how do you explain the drop here?



Increasing the temperature of the surface will increase the outflow, yes. But then the outflow is decreased by the GHG before it reaches space, so a higher-temperature macroscopic thermodynamic equilibrium is reached.

The only two ways to increase the temperature of anything are to increase the energy inflow or to decrease the energy outflow.


The interesting misuse of this chart is by context shift, producing a false equivalence.

This chart shows incoming energy and how it is absorbed by various gases in the atmosphere. The result of this absorption is conversion to thermal energy (or in the case of ozone and other stuff affected by UV, chemical reactions).

It has nothing to do with outgoing energy at all.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 11:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, I'd love it if everybody could do their own meta-analyses, but that's just not the case. Science is done better by professionals than by amateurs, anyway; that's not to say that amateurs cannot point out errors, but that such a thing happening would be incredibly unlikely.


All Hail the Great God Consensus.

Credentials do not make a better scientist. Anyone can do science just as easily. There have been some great scientists with no credentials at all.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 13:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, I'd love it if everybody could do their own meta-analyses, but that's just not the case. Science is done better by professionals than by amateurs, anyway; that's not to say that amateurs cannot point out errors, but that such a thing happening would be incredibly unlikely.


All Hail the Great God Consensus.

Credentials do not make a better scientist. Anyone can do science just as easily. There have been some great scientists with no credentials at all.

Very few. Almost all the great scientists had at least a university eduction. The only exception I can think of is Thomas Edison, and he was more of an inventor and businessman than a scientist.
22-09-2016 14:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If the incoming radiation is altered, why wouldn't the outgoing radiation be altered too?
22-09-2016 14:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If the incoming radiation is altered, why wouldn't the outgoing radiation be altered too?

The outgoing radiation is altered, but remember that the radiation emitted from the Earth is mainly in the IR, rather than the visible, part of the EM spectrum. This graph shows the IR spectrum of the outgoing radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere compared to the emission of a perfect blackbody:



You can see how CO2, H2O, CH4 and O3 absorb some of the outgoing radiation.

Edit: Source - http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/simple-earth-climate-model-single-layer-imperfect-greenhouse-atmosphere
Edited on 22-09-2016 14:34
22-09-2016 15:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, I know the difference. I thought I would show them the measurements from Earth so they would trust it more, but then Into missed the point: if downward radiation is prevented from reaching Earth somewhat, why couldn't the same phenomenon exist with upward radiation?
22-09-2016 15:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: So if observation doesn't matter... Then we don't need any data after all?!

Exactly. If you have science, data is no longer needed. I hope you realize that engineers design stuff from science, not from data.

I hope you realize that engineers design stuff from science, not from the latest consensus of the IPCC "climate scientists."

Science cares nothing for observations and captures none of them.

The scientific method cares only for falsifying data/observations and cares nothing for any "supporting" data/observations.


.


Wrong.

1. Engineers constantly test and redesign their designs.
2. They use accepted science in combination with testing.
3. Science involves observation. It is how it tests its theories and models.
4. The existence of supporting data means that the theory could have been falsified, but the data agreed with it. The more testing without falsification, the more accepted the theory is, AND the more supporting data there is (this statement follows from "testing without falsification").


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 15:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
jwoodward48 wrote: Wrong.

You know this is going to be good.

jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Engineers constantly test and redesign their designs.

Great, so you agree with me here....

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. They use accepted science in combination with testing.

...and you agree with me here ...

Did you notice the remarkable improvement in your posts when you agree with me?


jwoodward48 wrote: 3. Science involves observation. It is how it tests its theories and models.

You are weaseling in semantic generalities.

What science model contains data and/or observations? You claim that observations and data are somehow required for science. So give us an example of science that contains its required data/observations.

jwoodward48 wrote: 4. The existence of supporting data means that the theory could have been falsified, but the data agreed with it.

No, that is not what it means.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 19:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, I am not agreeing with you. You said that engineers do not design from data. They do.

Science is distinct from its output. It's like saying that factories don't use electricity unless their products are electronic devices.

What, pray tell, does the existence of supporting data mean?
22-09-2016 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, I'd love it if everybody could do their own meta-analyses, but that's just not the case. Science is done better by professionals than by amateurs, anyway; that's not to say that amateurs cannot point out errors, but that such a thing happening would be incredibly unlikely.


All Hail the Great God Consensus.

Credentials do not make a better scientist. Anyone can do science just as easily. There have been some great scientists with no credentials at all.

Very few. Almost all the great scientists had at least a university eduction. The only exception I can think of is Thomas Edison, and he was more of an inventor and businessman than a scientist.


Throw your computer away. Engineers could only build it the way it does because of a scientist with no credentials.

Oh, also throw away your appliances, your car, your cell phone, your TV and radio.

You're an ingrate, making the argument of ignorance.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 21:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He said the "great scientists." That is, Newton and Einstein, not Joe the Friendly Neighborhood Scientist.
22-09-2016 21:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, I am not agreeing with you. You said that engineers do not design from data. They do.

You bring up a great illustrative example.

The bottom line is that engineers design from science. They do, however, create lots of data from which they create specialized science models for their companies, which become trade secrets, and then they design from those. Don't expect Lockheed to ask for a peer review of models they want to keep secret from Northrop Grumman, Airbus, Boeing and all others.

Your example raises a subtle point about data. Sometimes test data determine the engineering requirements, and engineers design/build to requirements.

When you tell an engineer to design something, s/he'll ask you "What shall I design?" If you say "I want a really neat car" then s/he'll ask "what do you need it to do?" If you respond "I want it to go really fast" the engineer will ask "How fast and on what surface/terrain?" etcetera and so forth.

Often test data forms those requirements. In those cases, the engineer is building "to" the data, not "from" the data.

Great example.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 22:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, I am not agreeing with you. You said that engineers do not design from data. They do.
They do not. Testing is not design. It is testing. Testing needs no preexisting data. It generates its own.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Science is distinct from its output. It's like saying that factories don't use electricity unless their products are electronic devices.

Non-sequitur.
jwoodward48 wrote:
What, pray tell, does the existence of supporting data mean?

The existence of data means a departure point for inspiring a new theory. This is true whether the data is 'supporting' or 'unsupporting'.

Falsifying evidence (unsupporting data) can (and probably will) inspire a new theory (or engineering if you want to look at it that way).

Take the case of a classic engineering disaster, the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge known also as 'Galloping Gerdy'.

This bridge spans a narrow passage in Puget Sound connecting the city of Tacoma with the Olympic Peninsula. This narrow passage is often subject to high winds.

Even moderate winds would cause the bridge to oscillate, due to aeolian turbulence. Oscillations were typically transitional, moving the bridge deck up and down in waves. It became the local dare to drive on the bridge during windstorms.

One day a new oscillation mode appeared due to a particular windspeed. This new mode was a torsional oscillation, and its effect was to begin to seriously damage the joints in the roadbed.

Eventually a single joint failed, and the roadbed separated from its supporting cable. Like a locomotive going over the cliff and taking the train with it, other connected sections of the roadbed were dragged to their doom as well. In mere seconds, two-thirds of the roadbed lay at the bottom of Puget Sound.

The evidence gathered showed how the bridge was 'falsified' or how it failed.

It was decided to build models of the bridge and put it in the wind tunnel facility at the University of Washington. They adjusted the windspeed to a relative speed based on the model. The model did not oscillate at all.

It took Boeing engineers, using equations for aerodynamics, to correct wind tunnel tests for the Reynolds numbers involved at these small scales. The model collapsed just like its bigger sibling.

Using these same equations, these same engineers were able to design a new bridge, using minimal modifications, that would withstand the wind tunnel. This design was incorporated into the replacement real bridge, which is still standing today and doesn't gallop.

A marvelous example of designing things without data, but by using equations from one field in another field.

Now ALL major bridges make use of these equations. They are still tested in wind tunnels too.

Notice no data was used to design either bridge or the airplanes that Boeing builds. Boeing tests their airplanes thoroughly before they are released into service. You should see the jig they use to test the strength of a wing. All that data is used to inspire new designs for aircraft, but the design itself does not make use of it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-09-2016 22:54
22-09-2016 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
He said the "great scientists." That is, Newton and Einstein, not Joe the Friendly Neighborhood Scientist.


Actually, I did. That's what were were talking about dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 23:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Which great scientist without credentials was it whose work became computers? A better question: when did he/she live, and have things changed? An even better question: can you disprove a general statement with anecdotes?
23-09-2016 00:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Which great scientist without credentials was it whose work became computers? A better question: when did he/she live, and have things changed? An even better question: can you disprove a general statement with anecdotes?


Try Michael Faraday, for one.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 00:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Congratulations! You have successfully ignored all but the first part of my post. Have an Ignorance Cookie, you earned it.
23-09-2016 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Congratulations! You have successfully ignored all but the first part of my post. Have an Ignorance Cookie, you earned it.


You asked for a great scientist. I gave you one example. The rest of your post is irrelevant. You can answer those yourself if you want to.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 01:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The last was a rhetorical question.
23-09-2016 05:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
jwoodward48 wrote:The last was a rhetorical question.

Does sciencing involve developing a consensus?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 09:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The last was a rhetorical question.

Does sciencing involve developing a consensus?


.


Only when you're consensusing. After all, since you're sciencing that would also turn consensus into a process. So when you're processing a consensus by sciencing, you're consensusing as well.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2016 09:12
23-09-2016 15:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Stop evading. Also, I'm using words the way other people do - that's what makes your ridiculous nonsense different from my posts.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Basic arithmetic:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact