| 05-04-2022 01:01 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted severely damage quoting...
sealover wrote:
Hans Jenny was one of the all time greatest geniuses in soil science.
No such branch of science. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
His contributions are many, including the dramatic increases in corn harvests that followed his theoretical development of dry ammonia adsorption to soil.
Then it's not dry. Soil contains water...even in the driest of deserts.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps his greatest contribution was to help us understand what soil IS.
The word 'soil' has one of three meanings, and all of them are Anglo-French in origin. It may appear as a verb or one of two different nouns. I assume you are trying to use the first noun here.
The word simply means 'a piece of ground' or 'place'. It has an archaic meaning of 'place of one's nativity', another way of saying 'home turf'.
The 2nd noun means filth or refuse, quite possibly containing excrement. It is this term that is used for the phrase 'night soil' (a source of sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate).
You don't seem to be referring to the verb form here.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Soils are dynamic natural bodies having properties derived from the combined effect of climate and organisms acting on soil parent materials, as modified by topography, over finite periods of time.
An equation: soil = f(climate, organisms, parent material, topography, time)
Not an equation. Climate is not in soil. Organisms may be, but are not required. Their is no 'parent material'. Even rocks are soil. Topography is not a factor. Soil can appear as mountains, valleys, or flat lands. Time is not a factor. Soil simply is.
sealover wrote:
Indeed, given sufficient information about the factors of soil formation, one can very accurately predict what the soil profile must look like.
Soil has no profile.
sealover wrote:
Jack Major took Hans Jenny's theory one step further.
ECOSYTEMS have properties that can be predicted by a state factor model.
Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
An equation: Ecosystem (organisms) = f(climate, soil, topography, time)
He just rearranged Jenny's equation.
Not an equation.
sealover wrote:
Ecosystems have predictable properties derived from interactions between soil, climate, and organisms, modified by topography, over finite periods of time.
If you have enough information about climate, soil, topography, and AGE of the community in its succession cycle, you can accurately predict the details of the ecosystem adapted to it.
I had the good fortune of knowing both Hans Jenny and Jack Major.
It's fun to hang out with scientific geniuses!
These are obviously morons calling themselves 'scientists'. They don't even know what 'soil' means. Neither did you until I gave you the etymology of the word.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-04-2022 01:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
There is ALWAYS an audience.
Nah. Just people commenting here, just like you.
sealover wrote:
According to the box on the left, there are 11 guests, and I must be the only user logged on.
These are not one-on-one conversations.
No one said they were.
sealover wrote:
So, I am aware that 11 people might read what I post next. And that is just in the immediate future.
By tomorrow, hundreds of people may have visited the website and will have the opportunity to see what I post next. And it will be stored here for years.
You're so proud of making post after post that shows you are illiterate? A nothing?
sealover wrote:
Originally, I tried to be STRICTLY IMPERSONAL with information about biogeochemistry that people who actually care about climate change would possibly find of interest.
Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' or 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. There is nothing that can change.
sealover wrote:
I am not aware of having LIED about ANYTHING.
Lie.
sealover wrote:
Not the coral reef, not the PhD, not the publications, not the close encounters with some of the world's most highly respected scientists. ALL OF IT TRUE.
Lie.
sealover wrote:
Being called a liar so many times gets tiresome.
Stop lying. It really is pretty simple.
sealover wrote:
I have been consciously pandering to an audience who CARES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE and BELIEVES THAT SCIENTISTS KNOW SOMETHING OF VALUE.
Buzzword fallacy. Climate change is not science. Science is not a meaningless buzzword. You are trying to claim the Earth is warming because of a Holy Magick Gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You still ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics.
No gas or vapor is capable of reducing entropy. You still ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap light or thermal energy. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You deny science.
sealover wrote:
If you are not part of that target audience, you are not required to expose your sensitivities to my improper presentation of things in a way you do not like.
If nobody is listening to me, why do you need to be sure to loudly interrupt so they can get the truth from YOU? Nobody is listening to YOU either, if there is no audience.
You are listening. You are also responding.
sealover wrote:
There IS an audience already, and there is a target audience that isn't here yet.
Talking to people that aren't there is considered a mental illness.
sealover wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time writing these words if they were just for YOU.
Then why did you use the word 'YOU', dumbass???
sealover wrote:
You flatter yourself if you imagine otherwise.
You are describing yourself. YOU are describing yourself talking to imaginary people.
sealover wrote:
I know how to have useful scientific discussion with people who actually understand the stuff.
Obviously, you don't. When confronted with theories of science like the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you run and hide like a little girl. You instantly try to pivot away into something else.
sealover wrote:
You don't qualify for target audience.
You don't get to decide. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
You would rather attack someone for failing to unambiguously define climate change than attempt to understand actual science that lands into your world.
Science is not a meaningless buzzword. I and others have presented the theories of science you are ignoring, yet you still insist on ignoring them.
sealover wrote:
Your crime against humanity is that you have effectively prevented meaningful discussion of climate change and potential solutions at this website for at least seven years.
You can't discuss what you can't define.
Define The Problem.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: "quantum entangled photon networking"? Carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.05-04-2022 01:14 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
"quantum entangled photon networking"? Carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.
A thread titled Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosytems.
How inappropriate to "rant about dirt" rather than discuss the elephant in the room:
"quantum entangled photon networking"
I'll bet somebody started a thread where it might make sense to talk about this entangled network photon quanta.
I guess I'm the bad guy for being a soil scientist. PRETENDING to be a "scientist", because SOIL SCIENCE DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
So if you start a thread about soil science you better be ready to discuss those photon quantum network entanglements, or you are a LYING COWARD!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
LOL you can't even begin to initiate a quantum entangled photon networking conversation so you rant about dirt[/quote] |
| 05-04-2022 01:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
seal over wrote:
If you are not part of that target audience, you are not required to expose your sensitivities to my improper presentation of things in a way you do not like.
I'm sorry you continue to be disappointed in the free forum. Was Branner not forthcoming with the forum expense reimbursement?
Be patient. gfm7175 and I are working closely in hopes of soon implementing the Double IPP. (IBdaMann Insult Prevention Program) This will consist of an insult sequestration pipeline which will instantly capture and incinerate all non scientific insults and comments via excessive greenhouse gas energy.
This project is expensive, and we are encountering difficulties securing proper funding due to very low ESG scores. Would you care to donate to our mutual goal of silencing your oposition?
This sounds like it should just be the Only Insult Prevention Protocol, and submitted to the RFC committee as a proposed protocol of the internet (OIPP over IP).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-04-2022 02:21 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14390) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Be patient. gfm7175 and I are working closely in hopes of soon implementing the Double IPP. (IBdaMann Insult Prevention Program)
Once the program is established, can we make people pay monthly dues?
... or better yet, can it be named after a place and called a "protocol", e.g. the Florida protocol, whereby IBDaMann is identified as the problem and thus everyone else signs up for suffocating restrictions and binding quotas (lest fines be imposed if the quotas are not met or the restrictions exceeded)? Can we require everyone (except IBDaMann, of course) to commit to paying 2% of his income to maintain the protocol oversight board?
Ju'saskin. |
| 05-04-2022 02:34 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5719) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
A brief introduction to some of the better known radio services and their propagation path.
Actually Amplitude modulation AM waves and Frequency modulation FM and Very Low Frequency VLF waves all propagate on different paths.
AM is a type of modulation, not a frequency. FM is a type of modulation not a frequency. VLF frequencies follow the land, even going underwater a fair bit. This make them useful for signaling submarines, though the bandwidth is necessarily very limited. Voice can't be used. It's not good enough for audio.
Swan wrote:
CIAO Charlie
Now can we get to secure quantum entangled wireless computational links already, this obsolete stuff is boring the hey out of me. SQEL for short.
Buzzword fallacy.
LOL the fool that is still living in the past does not understand quantum entangled networking, calls cubits a buzzword which makes you qualified to run investigations for the FBI.
130 well verified
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Attempted insult(?). No argument presented.
LOL you can't even begin to initiate a quantum entangled photon networking conversation so your brain declares entanglement bogus. This is how schizzo minds work
Random phrases. Random buzzwords. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance." |
| RE: Anhydrous Ammonia is DRY ammonia, NH3, NOT ammonium, NH4+ .05-04-2022 05:30 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Anhydrous Ammonia is DRY ammonia, NH3, NOT ammonium, NH4+ .
Yes, there IS such a field of science as SOIL SCIENCE.
And yes, Hans Jenny was a genius, equivalent to Darwin or Einstein as far as paradigm shifting influence within their fields of science.
In the 1930s, Hans Jenny became known as the "friend of the farmer" for the tremendous boost in corn production he assisted with.
Few soil scientists become famous in any way, but this was also part of the New Deal outreach with the Soil Conservation Service. A time when caring about soil was being made a national priority.
Well, Hans Jenny theoretically conceived an entirely new way to fertilize.
Hans knew that there are many cation exchange site, i.e. acid neutralizing sites, that hold protons. Like the protons on an acidic groups of humic acids, for example.
Hans knew that ammonia gas ought to be able to attach to the protons on those cation exchange sites or protonated organic acids. Hans knew that the NH3 ought to combine with the H+ to make and adsorbed NH4+.
The ammonia had to be DRY, anhydrous NH3. Hans even figured out before they ever tried it that it would very effectively capture the ammonia gas if properly applied, with minimal gaseous loss to the atmosphere.
Nobody had ever tried it, but Hans told them it ought to work.
So, they tried it and it worked.
Some folks made millions from his idea, but Hans never saw a dime of it.
Still, the farmers knew it was Hans who thought of it and he was actually a popular figure, kind of like Fauci was at first.
This was decades before the Green Revolution started selectively breeding for high responders to nitrogen fertilizer. This was just a breakthrough in fertilizer technology made possible by a good understanding of soil chemistry.
I got to know Hans Jenny as friend in the final years of his life.
He encouraged me to go to his favorite forest, the pygmy forest, to test my polyphenol hypothesis. He died before I did exactly that.
He was telling us about the dry ammonia story, and he mentioned the downside of nitrogen fertilizer leading to nitrous oxide emissions.
I asked him if he regretted his invention, given that it did cause more nitrous oxide emissions.
He thought for a bit before answering.
He was glad that it brought about increased income for farmers and increased food supply for humanity.
He did have some regrets that it had contributed to loss of soil organic matter and to emission of nitrous oxide.
It was going to be up to MY generation of scientists to deal with those things.
I used to be younger... sigh.
So, it is NOT the SOIL that is dry. It is DRY AMMONIA added to the wet soil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Hans Jenny was one of the all time greatest geniuses in soil science.
No such branch of science. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
His contributions are many, including the dramatic increases in corn harvests that followed his theoretical development of dry ammonia adsorption to soil.
Then it's not dry. Soil contains water...even in the driest of deserts.
These are obviously morons calling themselves 'scientists'. They don't even know what 'soil' means. |
| 05-04-2022 06:37 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Be patient. gfm7175 and I are working closely in hopes of soon implementing the Double IPP. (IBdaMann Insult Prevention Program)
Once the program is established, can we make people pay monthly dues?
... or better yet, can it be named after a place and called a "protocol", e.g. the Florida protocol, whereby IBDaMann is identified as the problem and thus everyone else signs up for suffocating restrictions and binding quotas (lest fines be imposed if the quotas are not met or the restrictions exceeded)? Can we require everyone (except IBDaMann, of course) to commit to paying 2% of his income to maintain the protocol oversight board?
Ju'saskin.
The only issue I have with any of your proposal is that we will first have to define the problem....and that could be a problem.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 05-04-2022 08:21 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
GasGuzzler wrote:The only issue I have with any of your proposal is that we will first have to define the problem....and that could be a problem.
You have totally missed the point. The THREAT is clearly identified as IBDaMann. That is as far as it needs to go. The job of the board is to set GOALS and TARGETS for IBDaMann Insult Reduction. The goals and targets will be indecipherable formulas centered around percentages of buzzwords. The crucial aspect of all of this, of course, is the call for increased dues so that the board can tackle the THREAT, since the board is the only entity capable of ameliorating this THREAT and achieving the goals and targets that only they are smart enough to understand.
Please take a moment to consider this opportunity to address the THREAT in a new light. If IBDaMann is not addressed now, we might very well reach the tipping point, although it might already be too late.
95% of biographichemists and Climate Scientists agree that if IBDaMann is not stopped, this board will be totally ice free within 12 years ... or by the end of the century.
I don't think you are taking this seriously enough. Sven Issen doesn't think so either. |
| 05-04-2022 11:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-04-2022 11:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Anhydrous Ammonia is DRY ammonia, NH3, NOT ammonium, NH4+ .
Not when added to soil.
sealover wrote:
Yes, there IS such a field of science as SOIL SCIENCE.
No, there isn't.
sealover wrote:
And yes, Hans Jenny was a genius, equivalent to Darwin or Einstein as far as paradigm shifting influence within their fields of science.
The theory of natural selection has been falsified. So much for Darwin.
sealover wrote:
In the 1930s, Hans Jenny became known as the "friend of the farmer" for the tremendous boost in corn production he assisted with.
Making up stories about yourself again?
sealover wrote:
Few soil scientists become famous in any way, but this was also part of the New Deal outreach with the Soil Conservation Service. A time when caring about soil was being made a national priority.
The New Deal was fascism and communism. The Supreme Court even threw a lot of it out since it violated the Constitution of the United States.
sealover wrote:
Well, Hans Jenny theoretically conceived an entirely new way to fertilize.
Hans knew that there are many cation exchange site, i.e. acid neutralizing sites, that hold protons. Like the protons on an acidic groups of humic acids, for example.
Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Hans knew that ammonia gas ought to be able to attach to the protons on those cation exchange sites or protonated organic acids. Hans knew that the NH3 ought to combine with the H+ to make and adsorbed NH4+.
The ammonia had to be DRY, anhydrous NH3. Hans even figured out before they ever tried it that it would very effectively capture the ammonia gas if properly applied, with minimal gaseous loss to the atmosphere.
Buzzword fallacies. Technobabble. The ammonia isn't dry. Soil has water in it. I'm going to assume your misspelling was a typo.
sealover wrote:
Nobody had ever tried it, but Hans told them it ought to work.
So, they tried it and it worked.
Some folks made millions from his idea, but Hans never saw a dime of it.
Still, the farmers knew it was Hans who thought of it and he was actually a popular figure, kind of like Fauci was at first.
Fauci isn't popular.
sealover wrote:
This was decades before the Green Revolution started selectively breeding for high responders to nitrogen fertilizer. This was just a breakthrough in fertilizer technology made possible by a good understanding of soil chemistry.
What's the breakthrough? Ammonia has nitrogen in it.
sealover wrote:
I got to know Hans Jenny as friend in the final years of his life.
He encouraged me to go to his favorite forest, the pygmy forest, to test my polyphenol hypothesis. He died before I did exactly that.
He was telling us about the dry ammonia story, and he mentioned the downside of nitrogen fertilizer leading to nitrous oxide emissions.
I asked him if he regretted his invention, given that it did cause more nitrous oxide emissions.
He thought for a bit before answering.
He was glad that it brought about increased income for farmers and increased food supply for humanity.
He did have some regrets that it had contributed to loss of soil organic matter and to emission of nitrous oxide.
Making up stories about yourself again. Why are you afraid of nitrous oxide?
sealover wrote:
It was going to be up to MY generation of scientists to deal with those things.
I used to be younger... sigh.
What things? Define The Problem.
sealover wrote:
So, it is NOT the SOIL that is dry. It is DRY AMMONIA added to the wet soil.
So it is not dry ammonia. It is wet ammonia.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-04-2022 14:07 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined |
| RE: How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?05-04-2022 20:05 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined |
| 05-04-2022 20:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Buzzword fallacies. Psychoquackery. Trolling. No argument presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-04-2022 20:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
Buzzword fallacies. Void argument fallacies. No argument presented. Attempted proof by buzzword.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 05-04-2022 20:53 |
| RE: Start a "For Geniuses ONLY" thread05-04-2022 21:44 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Start a "For Geniuses ONLY" thread.
I promise to stay off it.
Your words will never have to be seen on a LOSER THREAD like this one.
The swine here do not even appreciate the pearls you cast.
Find a friendlier place to chum the waters.
Pretty soon they will be calling YOU a pig. Or troll. Or just an effing IDIOT!
A troll who plays word games and pretends to know something about "science".
Find a thread where they don't think you're so DISGUSTING and you just might get the respect you deserve.
Hey, you can actually start YOUR OWN THREAD!
Did you know that?
----------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
Buzzword fallacies. Void argument fallacies. No argument presented. Attempted proof by buzzword. |
| 05-04-2022 22:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Start a "For Geniuses ONLY" thread.
I promise to stay off it.
Your words will never have to be seen on a LOSER THREAD like this one.
The swine here do not even appreciate the pearls you cast.
Find a friendlier place to chum the waters.
Pretty soon they will be calling YOU a pig. Or troll. Or just an effing IDIOT!
A troll who plays word games and pretends to know something about "science".
Find a thread where they don't think you're so DISGUSTING and you just might get the respect you deserve.
Hey, you can actually start YOUR OWN THREAD!
Did you know that?
You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-04-2022 19:39 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction |
| 07-04-2022 01:57 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5196) |
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied... |
| 07-04-2022 02:53 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns. |
| 07-04-2022 07:22 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get. |
| 07-04-2022 14:07 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get.
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known. For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue |
| 07-04-2022 15:30 |
GretaGroupie ★★☆☆☆
(350) |
Swan wrote:
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known. For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
Swan, it's like trafn said in his book, do you really want to go looking for a smoking gun when you live in the barrel? |
| 07-04-2022 16:00 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
Swan wrote:There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There is no unambiguously defined "global climate." How can anyone build a model to be implemented in a program that is ambiguous and vague?
This is why "climate models" falls under the category of "Bigfoot", "Chupacabra" and other popular hoaxes. |
| 07-04-2022 16:56 |
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆
(350) |
IBdaMann wrote:
This is why "climate models" falls under the category of "Bigfoot", "Chupacabra" and other popular hoaxes.
Two-Shay, IBM, behold, the one and only true climate change model: functional, fast, and fun.
I call dibs on the red car!
|
| 07-04-2022 17:18 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
GretaGroupie wrote:Swan, it's like trafn said in his book, do you really want to go looking for a smoking gun when you live in the barrel?
|
| 07-04-2022 17:23 |
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆
(350) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Ohhh, it's like a before and after.
First I was just like the one way in the back on the left (I think it's a guy)...
...and now I'm the one on the right.
But with B cups, of course. |
| 07-04-2022 20:13 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
GretaGroupie wrote:
Swan wrote:
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known. For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
Swan, it's like trafn said in his book, do you really want to go looking for a smoking gun when you live in the barrel?
You would be smarter if you read less BS |
| 07-04-2022 20:16 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There is no unambiguously defined "global climate." How can anyone build a model to be implemented in a program that is ambiguous and vague?
This is why "climate models" falls under the category of "Bigfoot", "Chupacabra" and other popular hoaxes.
Wrong as there is an average temperature for every planet in the universe. However according to you Mars has exactly the same climate as the Earth.
Take the god damn Abilify kid |
| 07-04-2022 23:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get.
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known.
The most important being defining what 'climate change' even means.
Swan wrote:
For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-04-2022 23:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There is no unambiguously defined "global climate." How can anyone build a model to be implemented in a program that is ambiguous and vague?
This is why "climate models" falls under the category of "Bigfoot", "Chupacabra" and other popular hoaxes.
Wrong as there is an average temperature for every planet in the universe.
Yes there is. You don't know what it is. It is not possible to measure any of them.
Swan wrote:
However according to you Mars has exactly the same climate as the Earth.
...deleted insult...
Essentially yes. There is no global climate on Mars or on Earth. It is the same.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-04-2022 02:10 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get.
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known.
The most important being defining what 'climate change' even means.
Swan wrote:
For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
Your ignorance is perfect
Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter
Edited on 08-04-2022 02:13 |
| RE: Swan is CORRECT - See Nature 1995 volume 377 cover picture08-04-2022 02:18 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Swan is CORRECT - See Nature 1995 volume 377 cover picture
In September, 1995, volume 377 of the journal NATURE, had a cover picture of the earth's magnetic field and a MAJOR paper about this topic.
Swan probably saw it already. It is a beautiful magazine cover picture.
And there is no "cover up" trying to keep it secret. We're due for a reversal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get.
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known.
The most important being defining what 'climate change' even means.
Swan wrote:
For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
Your ignorance is perfect |
| 08-04-2022 02:22 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
sealover wrote:
Swan is CORRECT - See Nature 1995 volume 377 cover picture
In September, 1995, volume 377 of the journal NATURE, had a cover picture of the earth's magnetic field and a MAJOR paper about this topic.
Swan probably saw it already. It is a beautiful magazine cover picture.
And there is no "cover up" trying to keep it secret. We're due for a reversal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
How about QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS?
Similar in many ways to John Bell's ideas.
I thought the idea of instantaneous field effect across infinite distance was cool.
It is all very fun stuff to think about.
What I know how to PROVE is biogeochemistry.
What I would love to share is expertise about applied biogeochemistry.
Soon enough, I WILL be preaching to the choir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Quantum entanglement is quite coherent though it exceeds your third grade reading level
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other.
In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."
So?
So your brain is clearly not enabled to deal with reality and as such you spend most of your time denying that anything that you do not like or that clashes with your worldview is not real.
Schizophrenia defined
Quantum chromodynamics is a theory, quantum entanglement while not fully understood is proven real and has been demonstrated and information is being carried using the principle and networks using the principle are under construction
Yep, if you can create a computer-model, to simulate it, it must be real... Computer-models never lie. They just do what they are program to do, with the crappy data supplied...
There are no computer models that can simulate climate change as the influencers are all unknowns.
There are computer models that simulate all kinds of things. Some are basically entertaining video games, others are actually kind of useful. Climate Change computer models do exist, and realistic enough to sell agenda, But, are really just a nerdy video game. Really surprising they aren't packaging and selling them. As much as kids like to play games. Most people seem to primarily use their smart phones for games, or porn surfing. The IPCC could probably cash in almost as well, as the government donations they get.
Nope there actually are no models that simulate climate change because none of the variables to simulate are even known.
The most important being defining what 'climate change' even means.
Swan wrote:
For instance which climate change model replicates ACCURATLY what happens during Earth magnetic pole reversal which is overdue
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
Your ignorance is perfect
Actually I read a Navy article that the wandering pole is messing with Nav systems which forced the GPS system to be updated
Edited on 08-04-2022 02:26 |
| 08-04-2022 05:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
How do you know? Were you there?
Swan wrote:
Your ignorance is perfect
[quote]Swan wrote:
Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-04-2022 05:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Swan is CORRECT - See Nature 1995 volume 377 cover picture
In September, 1995, volume 377 of the journal NATURE, had a cover picture of the earth's magnetic field and a MAJOR paper about this topic.
Swan probably saw it already. It is a beautiful magazine cover picture.
And there is no "cover up" trying to keep it secret. We're due for a reversal.
Neither a magazine nor a paper is proof of anything, dude.
A slot machine is 'due for a big payoff' too.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-04-2022 05:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Swan wrote:
Actually I read a Navy article that the wandering pole is messing with Nav systems which forced the GPS system to be updated
Nope. Nav systems do not use the magnetic north.
GPS didn't have to be updated.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-04-2022 14:08 |
Swan★★★★★
(5719) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
How do you know? Were you there?
Swan wrote:
Your ignorance is perfect
Swan wrote:
Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.
Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times |
| 08-04-2022 20:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
How do you know? Were you there?
Your ignorance is perfect
Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter
Into the Night wrote:
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.
Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times
Just like your usual pattern. When you have no argument you call people psychos and start throwing insults.
You refuse to define 'climate change', making your arguments using this buzzword void.
You obviously have no idea how GPS or other navigation systems work.
You describe stuff that you believe occurred in history accurately as if you were there, when we both know you were not.
You call this religion of yours 'science'.
Then you try to blame YOUR problems on someone else.
When you can't get away with that, you start throwing insults and throwing the word psycho around.
Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Attempting to prove any religion True or False is fundamentalism.
I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that your religion is not science. You don't know what happened in the past. Everything you are describing is mere speculation. You weren't there.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 08-04-2022 20:20 |
| 08-04-2022 20:59 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Meh.
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.
Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.
How do you know? Were you there?
Your ignorance is perfect
Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter
Into the Night wrote:
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.
Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times
Just like your usual pattern. When you have no argument you call people psychos and start throwing insults.
You refuse to define 'climate change', making your arguments using this buzzword void.
You obviously have no idea how GPS or other navigation systems work.
You describe stuff that you believe occurred in history accurately as if you were there, when we both know you were not.
You call this religion of yours 'science'.
Then you try to blame YOUR problems on someone else.
When you can't get away with that, you start throwing insults and throwing the word psycho around.
Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Attempting to prove any religion True or False is fundamentalism.
I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that your religion is not science. You don't know what happened in the past. Everything you are describing is mere speculation. You weren't there. |
