Remember me
▼ Content

Is Quantum Vacuum energy a reality?



Page 2 of 3<123>
05-09-2019 19:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Your question about a particle with similar behavior is interesting. My question would be, "How similar"? "Fairly" similar might very well be considered the same particle by the LHC.
05-09-2019 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
Your question about a particle with similar behavior is interesting. My question would be, "How similar"? "Fairly" similar might very well be considered the same particle by the LHC.


Sure, it might, but that is not a proof. It might very well turn out to be leaping to a conclusion.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 21:11
05-09-2019 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote:
Didn't anyone tell you not to inappropriately condescend and patronize?


That's exactly what you did ...

keepit wrote:There's a lot in your post but when it contains things like "religion" when referring to science it just doesn't seem credible, etc.


Look, you're not altogether with it, and you have allowed yourself to fall for a scam. Fine. I, for one, am happy to let you believe what you want. You, on the other hand, become a chithead to others who try help you.

Good luck being successful in life with that attitude. You'll definitely need it being as gullible as you are.


.


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
05-09-2019 21:45
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
IBDM and ITN,
I just read Wiki's account of Karl Popper. Sounds like an ambitious intellect.
Most of what was posted was too vague for me but one thing did catch my mind.
He said he didn't know if there was a God. Fortunately i do know there is a God. The Holy Spirit visited me about 40 years ago and healed my sick and damaged soul. It was a spiritual experience, not a physical one. And not reproducible by anything on earth. I'm nothing special, i guess God figured i needed the proof. Thank God.
I am interested in phenomenology though.

Anyway, you both sound like Karl Popper. I don't say that i a derogatory way. It's just that i don't get it.
05-09-2019 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
IBDM and ITN,
I just read Wiki's account of Karl Popper. Sounds like an ambitious intellect.
Most of what was posted was too vague for me but one thing did catch my mind.

He wandered across several subjects, but he also noted that no amount of supporting evidence could prove a theory True.
keepit wrote:
He said he didn't know if there was a God.

A fair statement, since it is not possible to prove whether there is any god or gods, just as it is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.
keepit wrote:
Fortunately i do know there is a God. The Holy Spirit visited me about 40 years ago and healed my sick and damaged soul. It was a spiritual experience, not a physical one. And not reproducible by anything on earth. I'm nothing special, i guess God figured i needed the proof. Thank God.

And that's fine, so long as you recognize the circular nature of the argument (which is not a fallacy by the way).
keepit wrote:
I am interested in phenomenology though.

Phenomenology is that branch of philosophy that deals exclusively with our perception of the world. It defines what 'real' and 'reality' actually mean.

Imagine, if you will, that you have a functioning brain in a jar, hooked up to a computer simulation to provide it with all the senses of an artificial world in the computer (aka, The Matrix). How would such a brain know what was real? How would it know what is reality? It knows only what it experiences. To that brain, that IS reality. That IS real. That IS the knowledge it has.

Now imagine, if you will, a group of people observing a sunrise.

To one, they see a god rising into the sky.
To another, they see a chariot, driven by a god, rising into the sky.
To another, they see essentially a hot coal circling the Earth.
To another, they see the rotation of the Earth giving the appearance of the stationary Sun rising into the sky, and the Earth orbits the Sun.
To another, they see that neither the Earth nor the Sun are stationary, and that they orbit each other.
To another, they simply see the artistic beauty of the sunrise and accept it at that.

Six different people, six wildly different interpretations of the same event as their reality.

This is what phenomenology is all about.

'Real' is literally what we say it is, according to the model of the universe we already carry around, each and every one of us. That model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It is made up of the experiences we each have, and includes any theories formed from those experiences whether they are scientific ones or not.

So as a result an observation is not a proof. It is simply evidence. This is true even if the observation is augmented by instrumentation.

keepit wrote:
Anyway, you both sound like Karl Popper. I don't say that i a derogatory way. It's just that i don't get it.

Karl Popper understood phenomenology. Indeed, he was the one that first made the 'Matrix' type argument (which inspired the movie and comic book series). His reasoning suggests that it is not possible to have an absolute knowledge, since we don't even know if we are a brain in a jar.

However, there is such a thing as knowledge. It is made up of our experiences, including any theories we form from them.

This puts science in an awkward position. It puts religion in the same awkward position. Since there is no absolute knowledge, how is one to tell the difference? How do we know if there is enough supporting evidence to consider a theory 'science'?

Again, Popper suggests a way. He understood that no one owns science. No elite group of people vote for any theory of science that somehow make it a theory of science (as opposed to a nonscientific theory).

It was Karl Popper that first brought about the idea of falsifiability to determine if a theory can be part of the body of science, or if the theory is actually religious in nature (not falsifiable).

The idea is to look for exceptions to a theory that would show the theory itself to be wrong. In other words, science only looks for conflicting evidence, not supporting evidence at all.

If you look at the history of science, you will see that every time a theory was discarded, it was because someone found something wrong with it. Galileo, for example, caused the theory that everything orbited a stationary Earth to be discarded by observing moons orbiting Jupiter with a telescope. It showed that Jupiter was the center of it's moons, and not the Earth.

There was also the theory of the aether, some kind of mysterious substance or medium for light to wave in (since light was a wave). An experiment was conceived to try to measure the thickness of this medium. Eloquently designed, the experiment was designed to measure how the speed of light changes as it moved through the aether in different directions, as Earth moved through space (and the aether).

This experiment falsified the entire theory of the aether, for it showed that the speed of light does not change depending on the direction you are moving through it. There is no medium to find. Light does not require one! This grand failure of an experiment was called the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

Now scientists all over the world had to deal with that fact. They had simply assumed the aether was there, and now it suddenly isn't! For them, it's like the universe changed.

New theories happen all the time. Anything can inspire a new theory. They all begin as circular arguments, or arguments of faith. It is the test of falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the simple circular argument. As long as a theory is falsifiable, yet continues to survive tests designed to destroy it, the theory is automatically a part of science. No elite voting group. No peer review. No consensus. No blessing by a university or a government. No fixed method or procedure. No central authority of any kind. No anything.

The theory of science simply stands on it's own. It will continue to do so until it is falsified by a test designed to destroy it (the test is successful). This also means that no supporting evidence is needed or used.

Do nonscientific theories exist? Sure. Lots of them. They are not falsifiable, however, so they are not part of the body of science. They simply remain the circular arguments they started out as. They simply remain arguments of faith.

A theory is an explanatory argument. It must therefore be a valid argument. It must be free of any fallacy. This test is known as the internal consistency check, and all theories, whether scientific or otherwise, must pass it.

A theory of science has an additional test to pass. No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science, for to do so, one or both theories would have to be falsified (one would tend to falsify the other). This is known as the external consistency check. Nonscientific theories do not have to worry about this check, but theories of science must pass this test as well.

After that. It's a game of trying to break the theory by creating tests designed to destroy it, and having test after test fail (the theory survives the attempt). The tests must test the theory itself, not some other theory. They must be specific, definable, and able to be conducted. They must produce a specific result (or there is no result). This means the tests are always about something quantifiable. Thus, the theory itself is about something quantifiable. That is why we can represent them using math formulas.

Thus, science is not scientists. It is not a science organization, university, or government agency. It is not even people at all. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves.

Can science prove whether there is a god or gods, or prove whether no god or gods exist? No. These are not testable or provable. Science simply doesn't go there. Science is agnostic. It cares not whether any god or gods exist or do not exist.

Some great theories have come out of men that are Christians, atheists, Muslim, Shinto, or Hindi. They are all theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. Science simply doesn't care where a theory comes from, so long as it is falsifiable, and passes the internal and external consistency checks.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 23:11
05-09-2019 23:49
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Well, the thing is, my experience wasn't reproducible by anything on earth. It was a spiritual experience. The Holy Spirit made an indelible impression on my spirit. It is just a fact and a proof (to me). Anyone hearing my story doesn't actually experience the proof but i did.
06-09-2019 01:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote:Well, the thing is, my experience wasn't reproducible by anything on earth. It was a spiritual experience. The Holy Spirit made an indelible impression on my spirit. It is just a fact and a proof (to me). Anyone hearing my story doesn't actually experience the proof but i did.

This is what I notice.

* You had an experience that was real to you.

* You can anticipate the difficulty someone else might have in understanding your experience.

* You are not trying to bully anyone into believing as you believe.

Ergo, someone like me who has not had that experience can nonetheless congratulate you on having a meaningful experience that enhanced your life.

Also, you will have to forgive someone like me who has not had your experience for asking if possibly there were some people around who provided a "facilitation" to you having this experience in conjunction with you becoming a part of their church.

Anyway, congratulations on your experience.


.


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
06-09-2019 01:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
IBDM,
Thanks for your reply.
To answer, no, there were no church members or anyone i knew that had had that experience. I did know of such a thing though.
It's kind of like this, suppose there was a wall in you house that noone had access to. No physical matter had access either. Then imagine yourself as the wall. And you experience the Holy Spirit come along and write "Hello" on the wall. Keep in mind that physical matter has no access to this wall. The wall and the hello are proof because the wall and the hello are there, indelibly.
There were no actual words in the experience.
Anyhow, that is one way to explain it.
Really though, there are no words to explain it.
06-09-2019 02:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
Well, the thing is, my experience wasn't reproducible by anything on earth. It was a spiritual experience. The Holy Spirit made an indelible impression on my spirit. It is just a fact and a proof (to me). Anyone hearing my story doesn't actually experience the proof but i did.


And that's fine. To you, it's real. To others, it may or may not be.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2019 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Thanks for your reply.
To answer, no, there were no church members or anyone i knew that had had that experience. I did know of such a thing though.
It's kind of like this, suppose there was a wall in you house that noone had access to. No physical matter had access either. Then imagine yourself as the wall. And you experience the Holy Spirit come along and write "Hello" on the wall. Keep in mind that physical matter has no access to this wall. The wall and the hello are proof because the wall and the hello are there, indelibly.
There were no actual words in the experience.
Anyhow, that is one way to explain it.
Really though, there are no words to explain it.


Agreed. Such experiences are such that English really has no words for it.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2019 13:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
keepit wrote:
Anyway, you both sound like Karl Popper.

I wouldn't expect too much keepit. ITN doesn't seem to know Popper at all. I just had to correct him yesterday with Popper's own work:

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis.
..."Every application of science is based upon an inference from scientific hypotheses" From: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 43

That's a link to a book online free to read.

I could not write something more the antithesis of what ITN and IBD do every day here than Popper has:
"Yet science has more than mere biological survival value. It is not
only a useful instrument. Although it can attain neither truth nor probability, the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the
strongest motives of scientific discovery.
We do not know: we can only guess. And our guesses are guided by the
unscientific, the metaphysical (though biologically explicable) faith in
laws, in regularities which we can uncover—discover."
Edited on 06-09-2019 13:00
06-09-2019 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote: ITN doesn't seem to know Popper at all.

I don't think Into the Night and Karl Popper ever even met.

@Into the Night, what was Popper's favorite color?

tmiddles wrote: I just had to correct him yesterday with Popper's own work:

Unfortunately, you didn't correct anyone. To this day I can't recall anyone you have corrected in any way on any topic.

Into the Night recommended the reading of Karl Popper's work. Are you saying that he was incorrect in that recommendation and that you corrected that error ... ironically with Karl Popper's work?

tmiddles wrote: I could not write something more the antithesis of what ITN and IBD do every day here than Popper has:

Aside from announcing to the board just how desperate you are for us to be wrong about something ... ANYTHING ... how is Popper's quote somehow "antithetical" to my posting in this forum?


.


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
06-09-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN doesn't seem to know Popper at all.

I don't think Into the Night and Karl Popper ever even met.

Nope. Never met the man.
IBdaMann wrote:
@Into the Night, what was Popper's favorite color?

Good question.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I just had to correct him yesterday with Popper's own work:

Unfortunately, you didn't correct anyone. To this day I can't recall anyone you have corrected in any way on any topic.

Into the Night recommended the reading of Karl Popper's work. Are you saying that he was incorrect in that recommendation and that you corrected that error ... ironically with Karl Popper's work?

Actually, he is trying to correct Popper, not me, using Popper's own work.
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I could not write something more the antithesis of what ITN and IBD do every day here than Popper has:

Aside from announcing to the board just how desperate you are for us to be wrong about something ... ANYTHING ... how is Popper's quote somehow "antithetical" to my posting in this forum?

He is actually trying to attack my posting, but you get the idea.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2019 20:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Into the Night wrote:Actually, he is trying to correct Popper, not me, using Popper's own work.

The problem with the Marxist family of religions is that they are entirely personality driven. Marxists don't merely worship their deities but they worship their church clergy and they demonize non-believers, i.e. this believer is a "scientist" whereas that denier is a charlatan.

Frankly, Popper is no longer in the equation. He certainly got the ball rolling in the right direction but so many people have built on his work that today we have the entire modern engineering industry as a standing tribute to his ideas ... but no specific words or phrases previously uttered by Popper actually matter today. The need for science has become its own driver. Capitalism has ratcheted down the controls to avoid wasting resources and to maximize confidence in business decisions.

@tmiddles - you are welcome to do as Popper did and present your own definition of "science" and see how much traction it gets with actual investment dollars.
(that concept rubs your Marxism the wrong way, doesn't 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
06-09-2019 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Actually, he is trying to correct Popper, not me, using Popper's own work.

The problem with the Marxist family of religions is that they are entirely personality driven. Marxists don't merely worship their deities but they worship their church clergy and they demonize non-believers, i.e. this believer is a "scientist" whereas that denier is a charlatan.

Frankly, Popper is no longer in the equation. He certainly got the ball rolling in the right direction but so many people have built on his work that today we have the entire modern engineering industry as a standing tribute to his ideas ... but no specific words or phrases previously uttered by Popper actually matter today. The need for science has become its own driver. Capitalism has ratcheted down the controls to avoid wasting resources and to maximize confidence in business decisions.

There are no equations in philosophy. Yes, he got the ball rolling. His arguments still make the same sense today as they did back when he made them. You are quite right that other philosophical arguments have refined Popper's arguments.
IBdaMann wrote:
@tmiddles - you are welcome to do as Popper did and present your own definition of "science" and see how much traction it gets with actual investment dollars.

I asked him for the same thing. So far, he has been unwilling to provide a definition.
IBdaMann wrote:
(that concept rubs your Marxism the wrong way, doesn't it?)

Not the Marxist way. The usual tactic is to change the language and obscure the meanings of words.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 06:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I just had to correct him yesterday with Popper's own work:
you didn't correct anyone.

The statements from both of you are in direct conflict with Popper's work. I'm only correcting you if you pretend it's not.

IBdaMann wrote:Popper's quote somehow "antithetical" to my posting in this forum?

"the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the
strongest motives of scientific discovery.... we can uncover—discover." Karl Popper

And then we have IBD and ITN, the Great Non-Explorers:
tmiddles wrote: NET THERMAL RADIATION
Does it balance at 70F ? YES
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)
The false statement is made that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body, ...as in it would be impossible for you to absorb the 624 watts radiated to you from the room, the freezing in deep space scenario...

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... no alternative explanations offered.
...You are, after all, struggling to defend your religious faith. You are here to preach, not to courageously face ideas that rile your religious sensitivities....

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death...
Asking and ignoring again.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.
You definitely did not but go ahead a copy paste or quote. Easy to do.
Lie. Already did, ....

Your Scientific Exploration is missing entirely. What's worse is your goal it to shut down exploration by others. It's sad and lame.
07-09-2019 06:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:so many people have built...the entire modern engineering industry ...The need for science has become its own driver.

But to this question:
tmiddles wrote:
Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.
We have come very far as a species with a lot less to work with in the past.
So you should give an example of "Doing it right"

You have nothing:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error then it is what it is. It's nobody fault.....
07-09-2019 07:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:so many people have built...the entire modern engineering industry ...The need for science has become its own driver.

But to this question:
tmiddles wrote:
Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.
We have come very far as a species with a lot less to work with in the past.
So you should give an example of "Doing it right"

You have nothing:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error then it is what it is. It's nobody fault.....


You said nothing coherent in this post.

Did you have a question? Did you have a point?

.


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
07-09-2019 08:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:

Did you have a question? Did you have a point?

.


Yes you disengage entirely from ever discussing anything. Your response to any topic is to disqualify the discussion. I have had a lot of questions all of which you duck.

So what's one source of instruction on thermodynamics you trust?

How does a human body maintain temperature?

What's an example of an experiment or research you consider useable?
07-09-2019 09:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I just had to correct him yesterday with Popper's own work:
you didn't correct anyone.

The statements from both of you are in direct conflict with Popper's work. I'm only correcting you if you pretend it's not.

IBdaMann wrote:Popper's quote somehow "antithetical" to my posting in this forum?

"the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the
strongest motives of scientific discovery.... we can uncover—discover." Karl Popper

And then we have IBD and ITN, the Great Non-Explorers:
tmiddles wrote: NET THERMAL RADIATION
Does it balance at 70F ? YES
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)
The false statement is made that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body, ...as in it would be impossible for you to absorb the 624 watts radiated to you from the room, the freezing in deep space scenario...

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... no alternative explanations offered.
...You are, after all, struggling to defend your religious faith. You are here to preach, not to courageously face ideas that rile your religious sensitivities....

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death...
Asking and ignoring again.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.
You definitely did not but go ahead a copy paste or quote. Easy to do.
Lie. Already did, ....

Your Scientific Exploration is missing entirely. What's worse is your goal it to shut down exploration by others. It's sad and lame.

Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 09:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:so many people have built...the entire modern engineering industry ...The need for science has become its own driver.

But to this question:
tmiddles wrote:
Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.
We have come very far as a species with a lot less to work with in the past.
So you should give an example of "Doing it right"

You have nothing:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error then it is what it is. It's nobody fault.....


Repetitious bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 09:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Did you have a question? Did you have a point?

.


Yes you disengage entirely from ever discussing anything. Your response to any topic is to disqualify the discussion. I have had a lot of questions all of which you duck.

So what's one source of instruction on thermodynamics you trust?

How does a human body maintain temperature?

What's an example of an experiment or research you consider useable?

Repetitious questions that have already been answered.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 11:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions that have already been answered.

They never were and you know this. If they were you would enjoy proving me wrong. You are simply lying.

ITN you disrespect the board with all of the bloated quoting. Anyone who want to actually find information has to deal with scrolling through your long pointless quoting. You have filled two full screens with quotes when you had nothing to say.
07-09-2019 18:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote: ITN you disrespect the board with all of the bloated quoting.

Look who thinks he's the board.

tmiddles wrote: Anyone who want to actually find information has to deal with scrolling through your long pointless quoting.

Fortunately you're not one of those who actually wants to research relevant information.


.


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
07-09-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions that have already been answered.

They never were and you know this. If they were you would enjoy proving me wrong. You are simply lying.

Lie. They are repetitious questions that have already been answered.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN you disrespect the board with all of the bloated quoting.
You do not get to speak for the board. You only get to speak for yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
Anyone who want to actually find information has to deal with scrolling through your long pointless quoting. You have filled two full screens with quotes when you had nothing to say.

Bulverism fallacy. I do not cut and paste. I write all my own stuff.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-09-2019 20:12
07-09-2019 23:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
ITN you disrespect the board with all of the bloated quoting.
You do not get to speak for the board. You only get to speak for yourself.
Of course. But please consider it. It has nothing to do with any difference of opinion it's just something that would make the board easier to navigate for everyone.
08-09-2019 00:28
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
"You do not get to speak for the board".
That reminds me of Ronald Reagan speaking to Berkeley students before he became president. The students said something about something they didn't like and Reagan responded, "the people of california don't agree with you." The student shouted back, "we are the people of California!!!". It was awesome.
I wasn't there but i loved it. The first thing reagan did after becoming president was to fire all the air traffic controllers over a threatened strike. I didn't love that though. It was a good thing there wasn't a midair crash during the training time for the new controllers
08-09-2019 00:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
keepit wrote:The student shouted back, "we are the people of California!!!".

Nice! I hadn't heard that one. The worst is the often uttered "if you don't like it here get out". Doesn't get more unamerican than that.
08-09-2019 00:37
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
So true.
08-09-2019 09:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
ITN you disrespect the board with all of the bloated quoting.
You do not get to speak for the board. You only get to speak for yourself.
Of course. But please consider it. It has nothing to do with any difference of opinion it's just something that would make the board easier to navigate for everyone.


You do not get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 09:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
"You do not get to speak for the board".
That reminds me of Ronald Reagan speaking to Berkeley students before he became president. The students said something about something they didn't like and Reagan responded, "the people of california don't agree with you." The student shouted back, "we are the people of California!!!". It was awesome.
I wasn't there but i loved it. The first thing reagan did after becoming president was to fire all the air traffic controllers over a threatened strike. I didn't love that though. It was a good thing there wasn't a midair crash during the training time for the new controllers


Actually he fired them because they struck.

Pilots can actually fly planes quite well without ATC, and military ATC covered most of the positions in the meantime. No retraining was required. The civilian controllers were the same ones that worked those towers and stations before. The only difference is that they were no longer unionized.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-09-2019 09:12
08-09-2019 18:51
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
ITN, My best friend at that time was an air traffic controller (LA approach control) and he gave me a lot of the scoop. They were so desperate for controllers that they tried to hire him back from retirement. His was a great story but i won't bore you with it.
The point is, they were desperate for controllers and with desperate hiring came a slowdown in the flow of air traffic and inefficiency. Much waste and excess CO2 although no one was thinking about that at that time as far as i knew. Someone was though.
08-09-2019 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
ITN, My best friend at that time was an air traffic controller (LA approach control) and he gave me a lot of the scoop. They were so desperate for controllers that they tried to hire him back from retirement. His was a great story but i won't bore you with it.

My hat's off to the great guys that work SOCAL. That is one hellatious bit of airspace.
keepit wrote:
The point is, they were desperate for controllers and with desperate hiring came a slowdown in the flow of air traffic and inefficiency.

Yes. SOCAL and a few other crowded centers were short of controllers. The rest of the nation was able to cope quite well (including Seattle Center) by using scabs and military controllers.
keepit wrote:
Much waste and excess CO2 although no one was thinking about that at that time as far as i knew. Someone was though.

Actually, not a lot. Airlines flying into such areas didn't fly those routes.

I am a pilot, mechanic, and I also design and build aircraft as a hobby. I was flying at the time of the air controller strike. Most places did quite well, even the airlines, SOCAL was an exception, along with a few other busy areas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-09-2019 20:10
08-09-2019 20:08
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
They coped by reducing the flow of traffic.
08-09-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
They coped by reducing the flow of traffic.


Into such crowded areas, yes. That is what I said.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 09:25
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
ITN,
"SOCAL and a few other busy areas" equals a big chunk of total US air traffic.
09-09-2019 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
"SOCAL and a few other busy areas" equals a big chunk of total US air traffic.

I see you take pride in SOCAL as I do, but it is not that big a chunk of US air traffic.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 00:31
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
SOCAL and few others in total equals a good chunk of US air traffic.
If a good chunk is slowed down in the number of arrivals and the other "half" is putting out their usual number of departures, where are those excess flights landing. If they're still up there, they must be running lout of fuel!!!
10-09-2019 02:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
SOCAL and few others in total equals a good chunk of US air traffic.

Not nearly as big a chunk as you think it is.
keepit wrote:
If a good chunk is slowed down in the number of arrivals and the other "half" is putting out their usual number of departures, where are those excess flights landing.

They are not putting out departures. You may have forgotten what happened.
keepit wrote:
If they're still up there, they must be running lout of fuel!!!

They aren't up there.

Air traffic into congested areas was metered. No one took off until their meter allocation slot was available.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-09-2019 02:26
10-09-2019 02:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
ITN,
I'd never heard of SOCAL until you mentioned it.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Is Quantum Vacuum energy a reality?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
The disconnect between the Trump administration and reality on climate change keeps growing319-03-2019 18:32
Reality check: Maxime Bernier says CO2 isn't a pollutant. Climate scientists say he's wrong024-02-2019 04:38
How America Got Divorced from Reality: Christian Utopias, Anti-Elitism, Media Circus - Kurt Andersen1520-12-2017 01:37
The reality of an open online debate forum015-10-2015 05:18
▲ 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