Remember me
▼ Content

So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?



Page 2 of 2<12
12-11-2019 04:31
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
I don't think those acronyms and strange words that noone understands are helping the case you are trying to make.
12-11-2019 05:06
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I haven't heard of a problem. I'm afraid my thoughts on the subject aren't very smart.
From what i know, the theory is that it is more likely that some sort of a brain would form spontaneously without the need for a universe, than the likelihood of a universe occurring and then that universe evolving a brain or brains.



You're ignoring the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore nothing exists. Scientists invariably say that there is a source of energy. They just don't know what or where it is. Basically existence goes beyond God. It simply cannot be explained.
For the universe having a form and apparently to us substance, grand design or intelligent form that is purely random? That's up to the individual to decide.
12-11-2019 06:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: IBDM, I haven't heard of a problem. I'm afraid my thoughts on the subject aren't very smart.

I'll give you a hint: was the computation of the universe's probability of coming into existence explained to your satisfaction?

If so then you can explain it to me. If not, well, there you go.


.


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
12-11-2019 13:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Is the Joker dead?

Who can really say?

spot wrote: I'm mistaken about you bering old?

Do you have children?

spot wrote: What job do you have that let's you patrol the internet asking everyone "what is climate?"

A very good one, that pays very well.

.


Well marvel or DC whoever own the IP can say. As for me having children we are not friends and I'm not sharing personal information with you, what difference does it make anyway?

Good for you having a well paid job. Your never going to say what that job is so we just have to take your word for it. Since when did having lots of money stopped people from being bonkers anyway?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-11-2019 16:15
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:

Air is normally heated by the surface due to contact with the surface (conductive heating). It can also be heated by the surface using radiant heating. The surface is cooled by heating the air in both cases.


I would like to follow up on the quoted items above, especially the bolded part as it seems to be a part of my lack of understanding. Please comment on my deductions from your statement.

The earth would be much colder without the sun.
When the radiance of the sun is exposed directly to the earth surface, it is warmed.
When the sun is not directly exposed to the earth, it would be much colder than it is (generalization) without the earth's atmosphere which serves to offset the heat that would otherwise be lost.
The radiant heat is removed but the conductive heat remains.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
12-11-2019 17:49
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Why waste time getting metaphysical about the origins of the universe, or the energy that can't be created or destroyed, only changed? We only have a short time living, and we've found no other planet, with life, and only a few maybe's far, far, away, that would take a lifetime or more, to get there, just to see if our planet's life, could survive on them. It's a nice dream, but not much of a life.
12-11-2019 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Air is normally heated by the surface due to contact with the surface (conductive heating). It can also be heated by the surface using radiant heating. The surface is cooled by heating the air in both cases.


I would like to follow up on the quoted items above, especially the bolded part as it seems to be a part of my lack of understanding. Please comment on my deductions from your statement.

The earth would be much colder without the sun.
When the radiance of the sun is exposed directly to the earth surface, it is warmed.
When the sun is not directly exposed to the earth, it would be much colder than it is (generalization) without the earth's atmosphere which serves to offset the heat that would otherwise be lost.
The radiant heat is removed but the conductive heat remains.


The infrared light emitted by the surface requires energy. That energy is taken from the surface. The effect is a cooling effect on the surface. The energy is dissipated via conversion to electromagnetic energy.

Conductive heating of cooler air also requires energy from the surface. That energy is again spread out over the air. It is dissipated directly by conduction.

Of course, the Sun reheats the surface, restoring the energy lost. Same Sun, same energy in, same energy lost to emitting infrared light and to conductive heating of cooler air above the surface.

Equilibrium.

The only to change it is to supply energy from the Sun at a rate greater than what we have now. Assuming the same energy rate from the Sun, there is nothing to make the surface a warmer temperature than it already is.

Like a coal on the edge of campfire. The coal can't heat itself, but is heated by the campfire. In turn, the coal is losing energy to the cooler air around it.

Earth is very much like that coal. The only difference is that it emits light we cannot see.

The Church of Global Warming is making the argument that the coal can heat itself because of a magick gas surrounding it.


The Parrot Killer
12-11-2019 22:57
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Air is normally heated by the surface due to contact with the surface (conductive heating). It can also be heated by the surface using radiant heating. The surface is cooled by heating the air in both cases.


I would like to follow up on the quoted items above, especially the bolded part as it seems to be a part of my lack of understanding. Please comment on my deductions from your statement.

The earth would be much colder without the sun.
When the radiance of the sun is exposed directly to the earth surface, it is warmed.
When the sun is not directly exposed to the earth, it would be much colder than it is (generalization) without the earth's atmosphere which serves to offset the heat that would otherwise be lost.
The radiant heat is removed but the conductive heat remains.


The infrared light emitted by the surface requires energy. That energy is taken from the surface. The effect is a cooling effect on the surface. The energy is dissipated via conversion to electromagnetic energy.

Conductive heating of cooler air also requires energy from the surface. That energy is again spread out over the air. It is dissipated directly by conduction.

Of course, the Sun reheats the surface, restoring the energy lost. Same Sun, same energy in, same energy lost to emitting infrared light and to conductive heating of cooler air above the surface.

Equilibrium.

The only to change it is to supply energy from the Sun at a rate greater than what we have now. Assuming the same energy rate from the Sun, there is nothing to make the surface a warmer temperature than it already is.

Like a coal on the edge of campfire. The coal can't heat itself, but is heated by the campfire. In turn, the coal is losing energy to the cooler air around it.

Earth is very much like that coal. The only difference is that it emits light we cannot see.

The Church of Global Warming is making the argument that the coal can heat itself because of a magick gas surrounding it.


Thank you!


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
13-11-2019 08:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Air is normally heated by the surface due to contact with the surface (conductive heating). It can also be heated by the surface using radiant heating. The surface is cooled by heating the air in both cases.


I would like to follow up on the quoted items above, especially the bolded part as it seems to be a part of my lack of understanding. Please comment on my deductions from your statement.

The earth would be much colder without the sun.
When the radiance of the sun is exposed directly to the earth surface, it is warmed.
When the sun is not directly exposed to the earth, it would be much colder than it is (generalization) without the earth's atmosphere which serves to offset the heat that would otherwise be lost.
The radiant heat is removed but the conductive heat remains.


The infrared light emitted by the surface requires energy. That energy is taken from the surface. The effect is a cooling effect on the surface. The energy is dissipated via conversion to electromagnetic energy.

Conductive heating of cooler air also requires energy from the surface. That energy is again spread out over the air. It is dissipated directly by conduction.

Of course, the Sun reheats the surface, restoring the energy lost. Same Sun, same energy in, same energy lost to emitting infrared light and to conductive heating of cooler air above the surface.

Equilibrium.

The only to change it is to supply energy from the Sun at a rate greater than what we have now. Assuming the same energy rate from the Sun, there is nothing to make the surface a warmer temperature than it already is.

Like a coal on the edge of campfire. The coal can't heat itself, but is heated by the campfire. In turn, the coal is losing energy to the cooler air around it.

Earth is very much like that coal. The only difference is that it emits light we cannot see.

The Church of Global Warming is making the argument that the coal can heat itself because of a magick gas surrounding it.


Thank you!


That is a joke and you got played. "The Church of Global Warming" claims no such thing does a blanket generate its own heat? the fact that he refers to orthodox atmospheric physics as such should be enough to to realise that he is not serious. If you want to know read a book they teach school kids this stuff.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 13-11-2019 08:07
13-11-2019 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote:As for me having children we are not friends and I'm not sharing personal information with you, what difference does it make anyway?

... which means you don't have children. The difference is that it really diminishes the value of your opinion on a multitude of topics.

spot wrote: Good for you having a well paid job. Your never going to say what that job is so we just have to take your word for it.

Does it matter if anyone takes my word for it? If you won't take my word for it, I'll understand. I'll tell you what, let's pretend I'm just like you, a loser posting from my mother's basement in between filling out online job applications to flip burgers. Watch: "Ma'am, would you like fries with your order?" Oh wait, that's the order-taker, not the burger-flipper. Crap. You know what? I don't think I could ever do what you do. And you probably do it effortlessly. And to think that all those episodes of Spongebob couldn't make me any more proficient with a spatula. Dude, you don't know how blessed you are.


spot wrote: Since when did having lots of money stopped people from being bonkers anyway?

You have a point. My kids tell me I'm bonkers practically every day. Maybe you've nailed that cause->effect!

.


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
13-11-2019 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Air is normally heated by the surface due to contact with the surface (conductive heating). It can also be heated by the surface using radiant heating. The surface is cooled by heating the air in both cases.


I would like to follow up on the quoted items above, especially the bolded part as it seems to be a part of my lack of understanding. Please comment on my deductions from your statement.

The earth would be much colder without the sun.
When the radiance of the sun is exposed directly to the earth surface, it is warmed.
When the sun is not directly exposed to the earth, it would be much colder than it is (generalization) without the earth's atmosphere which serves to offset the heat that would otherwise be lost.
The radiant heat is removed but the conductive heat remains.


The infrared light emitted by the surface requires energy. That energy is taken from the surface. The effect is a cooling effect on the surface. The energy is dissipated via conversion to electromagnetic energy.

Conductive heating of cooler air also requires energy from the surface. That energy is again spread out over the air. It is dissipated directly by conduction.

Of course, the Sun reheats the surface, restoring the energy lost. Same Sun, same energy in, same energy lost to emitting infrared light and to conductive heating of cooler air above the surface.

Equilibrium.

The only to change it is to supply energy from the Sun at a rate greater than what we have now. Assuming the same energy rate from the Sun, there is nothing to make the surface a warmer temperature than it already is.

Like a coal on the edge of campfire. The coal can't heat itself, but is heated by the campfire. In turn, the coal is losing energy to the cooler air around it.

Earth is very much like that coal. The only difference is that it emits light we cannot see.

The Church of Global Warming is making the argument that the coal can heat itself because of a magick gas surrounding it.


Thank you!


That is a joke and you got played. "The Church of Global Warming" claims no such thing does a blanket generate its own heat?
Yes it does. You have said it also. You try to create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
the fact that he refers to orthodox atmospheric physics
Buzzword fallacy.
spot wrote:
as such should be enough to to realise that he is not serious.

Denying your own argument and using buzzwords is not a serious argument.
spot wrote:
If you want to know read a book they teach school kids this stuff.

Apparently not. YOU didn't learn it. Did you graduate grade school?


The Parrot Killer
13-11-2019 19:55
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
I'm not sure i know how to calculate the probability of this universe coming into existence. I suppose it would be verrry small.
I'm pretty much interested in the many worlds hypothesis though.
13-11-2019 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I'm not sure i know how to calculate the probability of this universe coming into existence.

Not possible. No definable random number type or boundary.
keepit wrote:
I suppose it would be verrry small.

Why?


The Parrot Killer
13-11-2019 23:13
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
According to the many worlds hypothesis there are an infinite number of universes. If that is true, the one we are in is one of sooo many.
14-11-2019 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
According to the many worlds hypothesis there are an infinite number of universes. If that is true, the one we are in is one of sooo many.


How can there be an infinite number of universes? Isn't a universe all encompassing?


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2019 01:25
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
The universe doesn't care about our quibbling over semantics.
14-11-2019 02:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
According to the many worlds hypothesis there are an infinite number of universes. If that is true, the one we are in is one of sooo many.



It is not possible for ANY universe to exist. Energy requires a point of origin. At some point energy had to create itself from nothing. This is something that is simply beyond explanation.
14-11-2019 02:04
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Beyond a good and convincing explanation, yes, but not necessarily untrue.
14-11-2019 02:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
Beyond a good and convincing explanation, yes, but not necessarily untrue.


This is where we become metaphysical. Existence just isn't possible. Did something define what is not possible and allow for possibility? This is up to the individual to decide
This creates an odd query, a paradox if you will. Who is the fool? The person who doesn't live because they question their existence or the person who lives without believing in anything?

There's one gal I used to work with at Amazon whenever I hear this song https://youtu.be/00gXEn1ehDg
Edited on 14-11-2019 02:45
14-11-2019 02:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
The universe doesn't care about our quibbling over semantics.

True. Why are you quibbling over semantics?


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2019 03:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
According to the many worlds hypothesis there are an infinite number of universes. If that is true, the one we are in is one of sooo many.



It is not possible for ANY universe to exist. Energy requires a point of origin. At some point energy had to create itself from nothing. This is something that is simply beyond explanation.


Actually, no it didn't.

There are two nonscientific theories about the Universe, and neither requires creating energy out of nothing.

The 1st and more popular theory is the Theory of the Big Bang. According to this theory, the Universe began from an intense point of energy as a singularity. Since this theory has a beginning of a Universe, it also has an end. There are two possibilities: One is that the Universe will simply return to it's singularity and form again, and the other is that the Universe will dissipate all of its energy uniformly over its volume (does it HAVE a volume??), leaving Universe in the state known as a 'heat death'. No more heat will flow.

The 2nd and less popular theory of the Universe is the Theory of the Continuum. According to this theory, the Universe has no beginning, and therefore has no end. It has always been here, and always will be. Obviously, no energy is being created or destroyed here either.


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2019 03:38
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
According to the many worlds hypothesis there are an infinite number of universes. If that is true, the one we are in is one of sooo many.



It is not possible for ANY universe to exist. Energy requires a point of origin. At some point energy had to create itself from nothing. This is something that is simply beyond explanation.


Actually, no it didn't.

There are two nonscientific theories about the Universe, and neither requires creating energy out of nothing.

The 1st and more popular theory is the Theory of the Big Bang. According to this theory, the Universe began from an intense point of energy as a singularity. Since this theory has a beginning of a Universe, it also has an end. There are two possibilities: One is that the Universe will simply return to it's singularity and form again, and the other is that the Universe will dissipate all of its energy uniformly over its volume (does it HAVE a volume??), leaving Universe in the state known as a 'heat death'. No more heat will flow.

The 2nd and less popular theory of the Universe is the Theory of the Continuum. According to this theory, the Universe has no beginning, and therefore has no end. It has always been here, and always will be. Obviously, no energy is being created or destroyed here either.


In either situation, energy exists outside of the known laws of physics. Since energy cannot be created not destroyed, it simply cannot exist. Existence requires a causation such as the Big bang happened because the energy came from somewhere, just not from here. If not from here, then where is not here?
Some place else but I can't tell you about it because it's just a theory.
14-11-2019 05:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
While I have been listening to a lot of Christmas music, there is simply nothing that allows for existence. Energy cannot be created. What cannot be created cannot exist.

Laws of Thermodynamics | Back to Top
Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html#Thermodynamics

Since energy cannot be created, we cannot exist. It is up to the individual to decide what they believe.
And since I am 1/2 Norwegian, God Jul
14-11-2019 05:28
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I always try to make sure i don't talk myself into confusion. Prioritizing various slogans that we use seems to help.
14-11-2019 06:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
I always try to make sure i don't talk myself into confusion. Prioritizing various slogans that we use seems to help.


Well, you certainly failed at that!



The Parrot Killer
14-11-2019 06:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: IBDM,
I'm not sure i know how to calculate the probability of this universe coming into existence. I suppose it would be verrry small.

You have to calculate it before you can determine whether it is high or low.

You have to admit, the probability of the universe having formed is 100%, i.e. absolutely certain. Perhaps thats an indicator that the true probability is actually rather high.

keepit wrote:I'm pretty much interested in the many worlds hypothesis though.

Is it an hypothesis or is it a theory or is it a conjecture?

[hint: conjecture]

.


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
14-11-2019 17:54
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
I wouldn't think it's considered a theory but i think it's a fact. I don't think cosmologists consider it a conjecture but some might.

I can't remember exactly but there's a difference between calculating a probability ahead of time vs calculating it after the fact.
Edited on 14-11-2019 17:57
14-11-2019 21:28
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
Wikipedia says that the originator (Everett) considers his theory to be a "metatheory".
I wrote an amateur book on it about 30 years ago and thought i was the originator but i wasn't.
Apparently about 1/2 of cosmologists consider it valid. Arguing about the semantics of what to call it is a waste of time, i would say.
14-11-2019 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: IBDM, I wouldn't think it's considered a theory but i think it's a fact. I don't think cosmologists consider it a conjecture but some might.

Nope. How do you imagine that it is a "fact" when you cannot show it to be the case whatsoever?

You are referring to the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The word "interpretation" in this context means "think of it this way." For example, I could tell you to think of gravity as a bunch of invisible demons throwing their batarangs around objects and pulling down, and to think of demons with more mass as being bigger and stronger and having a stronger pull. Now that you have thought if it in that way, does it make it a fact that invisible demons are pulling down on things?

The quantum mechanics part of that tells you that it is math, not science. Quantum mechanics is a branch of applied statistical mathematics and can only afford you an analysis of probabilities based on the parameters you provide. The extent to which you are in error about the parameters you provide is the extent to which your calculations will diverge from reality.

keepit wrote:I can't remember exactly but there's a difference between calculating a probability ahead of time vs calculating it after the fact.

We have a winner! Yes, there is a huge difference because there is no such thing as a probability where the result is known. Probabilities only apply where the result is not known, typically owing to the fact that it is yet to happen in the future but all that is required is for the result to not be known.

Once the result happens and is known, then the wave function collapses (Schroedinger's Cat) and you are left with one of two binary options for any particular event, i.e. either it occurred (100% likelihood that it happened) or it did not (0% likelihood that it happened) ... with the two adding up to 100%. Your knowledge of the results determines which option you realize transpired with absolute certainty ... because you already know. No calculations are required because there are no probabilities.


.


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
15-11-2019 00:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Not that i don't appreciate you elaborating on what i concluded, it appreciate it, but i still think it is a waste of time arguing about the semantics. It distracts from real learning in many instances i would say.
Edited on 15-11-2019 00:33
15-11-2019 01:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: IBDM, I wouldn't think it's considered a theory but i think it's a fact. I don't think cosmologists consider it a conjecture but some might.

Nope. How do you imagine that it is a "fact" when you cannot show it to be the case whatsoever?

You are referring to the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The word "interpretation" in this context means "think of it this way." For example, I could tell you to think of gravity as a bunch of invisible demons throwing their batarangs around objects and pulling down, and to think of demons with more mass as being bigger and stronger and having a stronger pull. Now that you have thought if it in that way, does it make it a fact that invisible demons are pulling down on things?

The quantum mechanics part of that tells you that it is math, not science. Quantum mechanics is a branch of applied statistical mathematics and can only afford you an analysis of probabilities based on the parameters you provide. The extent to which you are in error about the parameters you provide is the extent to which your calculations will diverge from reality.

keepit wrote:I can't remember exactly but there's a difference between calculating a probability ahead of time vs calculating it after the fact.

We have a winner! Yes, there is a huge difference because there is no such thing as a probability where the result is known. Probabilities only apply where the result is not known, typically owing to the fact that it is yet to happen in the future but all that is required is for the result to not be known.

Once the result happens and is known, then the wave function collapses (Schroedinger's Cat) and you are left with one of two binary options for any particular event, i.e. either it occurred (100% likelihood that it happened) or it did not (0% likelihood that it happened) ... with the two adding up to 100%. Your knowledge of the results determines which option you realize transpired with absolute certainty ... because you already know. No calculations are required because there are no probabilities.


.



Thing is, you aren't doing anything so does it matter?
15-11-2019 01:33
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
Some say that there are only probabilities, the universe is mathematical.
In other words, causes cause only probabilities. They don't cause actual results.
Like the difference between probability before and probability afterward, the difference between causing probabilities and causing results is subtle. Maybe too subtle.
Edited on 15-11-2019 01:34
15-11-2019 02:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I wouldn't think it's considered a theory

The Theory of the Big Bang is a nonscientific theory.
keepit wrote:
but i think it's a fact.

Not a fact. A theory. Learn what the word 'fact' means.
keepit wrote:
I don't think cosmologists consider it a conjecture but some might.

Some do, some don't. The ones that don't are fundamentalists in the Church of the Big Bang.
keepit wrote:
I can't remember exactly but there's a difference between calculating a probability ahead of time vs calculating it after the fact.

WRONG. You have to define the random type and source before you can calculate ANYTHING in probability. Go learn probability and random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
15-11-2019 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Not that i don't appreciate you elaborating on what i concluded, it appreciate it, but i still think it is a waste of time arguing about the semantics. It distracts from real learning in many instances i would say.


No one is bringing up semantics except you. What 'semantics' do you think is being discussed here?


The Parrot Killer
15-11-2019 02:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Quit harassing me with nonsense ITN. If you don't understand what i say, just ignore me.
15-11-2019 04:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Quit harassing me with nonsense ITN. If you don't understand what i say, just ignore me.


You aren't saying anything.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-11-2019 04:48
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
CO2 emission from fossil fuels.6313-09-2019 07:36
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ 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