Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
paperburn1
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by paperburn1 »

:D :D :D
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

Whatever.

You're on the ignore list and will have to earn your way off it if you think you have something to say worth my bother to hear.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

I gotta say that so far I've found ten weirdos and three or four sane people, and most of the sane people are hiding because they're tired of being harassed by the weirdos, climate weirdos, jebus weirdos, creationist anti-Darwin and anti-Einstein weirdos, and all the rest.

I think Bussard would be appalled. People who think jebus created the universe six thousand years ago are unlikely to be all that receptive to advanced fusion designs. I bet he'd be a lot more interested in people who are curious about magnetism.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Schneibster,

What is your background? Theoretical physics? What do you do for a living? Just curious.

What do you think about James Woodward and this Mach Effect for propulsion that folks have been talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

rj40 wrote:Schneibster,

What is your background? Theoretical physics? What do you do for a living? Just curious.
In school I had to choose between the money and the physics. I took the money and have had a career in electronics engineering and software engineering. Physics, though, was always my first love. I have big bookshelves. The best ones, like The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Cosmic Landscape and Relativity and The Force of Symmetry are old friends that I have to replace every so often because I refer to them so much they fall apart.

How about you?
rj40 wrote:What do you think about James Woodward and this Mach Effect for propulsion that folks have been talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Here is the first I've heard of it under that name; I saw a mention of it on another forum here. I'll look it over and tell you.

Have you seen the amplituhedron?

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta ... m-physics/

What do you think of the recent finding that all the combined particle data from all the TeV-capable accelerators shows that there are three and only three generations of elemental fermions- the quarks, leptons, and neutrinos-- to 5.3 sigma significance?

Are you convinced by the experimental confirmations of Bell's Theorem?

And what's your favorite theory of dark matter?
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

Looked through the Wikipedia article, it sounds credible if the effect actually exists.

The underlying principle is much more subtle: suppose you were the only thing that existed in a universe. If you spun, how would you know?

OK, so would you feel angular acceleration? Why? How can you tell you're moving at all?

You can go on from there to questions about translational movement.

One question: where does the heat from expanding and contracting the transducer get dumped? Because that heat has to come from somewhere, otherwise this is perpetual motion. TANSTAAFL aka 1LOT aka mass-energy conservation.

On edit: also, Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is the basis of Jack Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM. Cramer proposed using the LIGO tunnels to string fiber optics and test Marlan Scully's Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment to see if we can "catch" WFAT "telling" the other half of the quantum pair how to behave superluminally. Whether he actually followed up or not I don't know; that's about the time the deniers took over the Internet and started kicking anyone who actually knew anything off.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

My background is geology. Ended up making maps and have now clawed my way to middle management. Subcontracted to oil companies and even the Govt. in the past. Still having fun.

Yes, saw some stuff on the amplituhedron. Sounds like it might be significant. But I don't understand how. I read that it might be useful in making equations that simplify all sorts of physics calculations. I will review the link.

Have not heard of the elemental fermion findings. I don't know what it could mean.

Ah, Bell's theore. I am not qualified to have an opinion. But if they are reproducible, I would think that is significant. Are the experimental results pretty clear, or sort of on the edge?

My favorite theory of dark matter - I don't have a clue. But a fun one I have read about is that it is an effect of our universe interacting with another universe. That would neat. And potentially informative.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Schneibster wrote:Looked through the Wikipedia article, it sounds credible if the effect actually exists.

The underlying principle is much more subtle: suppose you were the only thing that existed in a universe. If you spun, how would you know?

OK, so would you feel angular acceleration? Why? How can you tell you're moving at all?

You can go on from there to questions about translational movement.

One question: where does the heat from expanding and contracting the transducer get dumped? Because that heat has to come from somewhere, otherwise this is perpetual motion. TANSTAAFL aka 1LOT aka mass-energy conservation.

On edit: also, Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is the basis of Jack Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM. Cramer proposed using the LIGO tunnels to string fiber optics and test Marlan Scully's Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment to see if we can "catch" WFAT "telling" the other half of the quantum pair how to behave superluminally. Whether he actually followed up or not I don't know; that's about the time the deniers took over the Internet and started kicking anyone who actually knew anything off.
I hope it is real, it can be scaled up, and a working engine can be made. I still need to get the book.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Diogenes »


MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’




Image

"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified."

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/ ... -ipcc-has/



"But...but.... but...... 14,000 to 25!!!! " That many people with opinions can't possibly be wrong about something!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Stubby »

14000 to 26

:P (yes i know it is not a ratio of people but of papers)

Still pretty long odds that his interpretation of the data is more correct than the hundreds (or is it thousands) of similarly qualified scientists who think he is wrong.

At what ratio would of pro/con would you folks need in order to entertain the possibility that climate change/global warming is happening?
140 000 to 26?
1 400 000 to 26?
14 000 000 to 26?

any higher than that and you might as well start believing in Rossi ffs.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Diogenes »

Stubby wrote:14000 to 26

:P (yes i know it is not a ratio of people but of papers)

Still pretty long odds that his interpretation of the data is more correct than the hundreds (or is it thousands) of similarly qualified scientists who think he is wrong.

At what ratio would of pro/con would you folks need in order to entertain the possibility that climate change/global warming is happening?
140 000 to 26?
1 400 000 to 26?
14 000 000 to 26?

any higher than that and you might as well start believing in Rossi ffs.


No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me. The idea that opinions have any evidentiary value is nonsense. This is a fallacy so old it has a Latin name; "Argumentum ad populum."


A Valid argument would consist of Data and theory which supports their contention. Computer models are not good enough unless you can demonstrate conclusively that every possible factor has been accounted for and is accurately modeled. We have sufficient experience to date to know that this hasn't been the case.

Beyond that, anybody who has any familiarity with chaos theory knows that the starting parameters can have disproportionate effects on the output, and that very minor differences in data can produce wildly different results.


Seriously. I consider it childish to believe you can vote on reality. The entire world can BELIEVE something is true, but that won't make it true.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen
His last job was testifying for the tobacco companies that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Gee, so he's a climate scientist, hmm? What's he doing testifying about tobacco then?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... S._Lindzen

Turns out he has an Associate Degree in physics. He's a mathematician and a meteorologist. Meteorology is not oceanic and atmospheric geophysics. He doesn't know shit about atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. He only knows about weather. Climate, as you have been told a billion times, is not weather.

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Last but not least, he's against "computer models." Guess what meteorology is all completely 100% chock full of? Computer models. Know why 5 day forecasts became 10 day forecasts? (Subtext: are you old enough to remember 5 day forecasts?)

Duh ummm.

Don't even bother lying. You're wasting everyone's time. I've already done all this a million times over. I've seen every lie you can tell and I have the sources that prove them lies.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

Diogenes wrote:No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me.
You're making a logical error: you're claiming there are no experts. Claiming the votes of experts in a field are equivalent to the votes of the generally informed is a logical fallacy; if you want to claim the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html Appeal to Authority, you have to be prepared to prove it's false authority. And you're not. Here's why:

In this case, the authority is all the climate scientists in the world. They are the only available authority. Just that simple. This is the process of science. Peer-reviewed papers are the votes of the experts. If you don't believe in science, your criticisms of it all fall hollow. If you disagree with the mainstream your claims are extraordinary. Just like a Darwin or Einstein denier. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you do not have.

Using this logic, try telling the mechanic you know more about fuel injection than he does.

But not if you care about the car he's fixing.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Schneib-meister,

Do you ever work with kids and young folks about AGW? I don't think you can change most people's minds here (including mine, but then again, for a variety of reasons, I think AGW is real, so you probably don't want to change my mind - or the effect it has on how I vote and where I donate my money and time); but can you recommend any books or even websites appropriate for kids? Who is that guy that said, "get'em while they're young and ya' got'em for life!? Arrre me hearties!" Ok, that pirate part isn't part of the phrase, but it seems to fit.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

rj40 wrote:My background is geology. Ended up making maps and have now clawed my way to middle management. Subcontracted to oil companies and even the Govt. in the past. Still having fun.
I could never make sense of geology until I had a lot of math; my childhood encounters with it were therefore less than captivating. I liked electronics and telescopes a lot more. My parents got me all of them so I had the chance to decide what I liked, and then encouraged me to explore whatever I found captivating.

By the time I was interested in geology it was mostly because of the solid matter physics of crystals, and especially their applications in optics. So I have general knowledge, and specific knowledge of crystalline structures, as well as general physics and plate tectonics and volcanoes and hot spots and so forth. I expect you have all kinds of specialized knowledge I don't.

I wonder if I've used any of your products? What was that thing called, the Tiger Map Server? I used to use that before Google Earth for astronomical positioning, and before they de-obfuscated the last digits of GPS.
rj40 wrote:Yes, saw some stuff on the amplituhedron. Sounds like it might be significant. But I don't understand how. I read that it might be useful in making equations that simplify all sorts of physics calculations. I will review the link.
The basic two ideas you need to know in order to understand it are the CKM and PMNS matrices. These mathematical artifacts are the ones that define how all the higher-energy matter particles decay into lower-, and eventually lowest-energy particles, like up and down quarks in the CKM matrix, and electrons and electron-neutrinos in the PMNS matrix.

You have probably heard of mixing angles if you've read much about quantum physics. These mixing angles determine how likely, in an interaction, a particle is to retain its original character vs. how likely it is to change to a lower-energy state. Another way of looking at it is that the particle is a "quantum chimaera," a "mixture" of this and that like a lion-goat or a mouse-dog. If you look at it now it's a dog; if you look then it's a parakeet. How likely it is to be each is determined by its Shroëdinger equation, which contains a random element. This is explicitly visible in neutrinos which oscillate between their three flavors and may be detected as a different flavor at various points along their flight path.

Look up CKM matrix and PMNS matrix on Wikipedia and come ask me questions. Basically, to put it in perspective, these crystals allow calculations of the mixing angles in these matrices in much simpler terms than are required using the two matrices separately, and physicists are fascinated because they see the missing chunk in the upper right as the likely domain of the mixing angles of the force particles. This introduces the mixing angles between matter (fermions) and energy (bosons). And that is supersymmetry. So you see that this is the entree of string theory to the Standard Model. Very significant. If string physics is correct, then we will find supersymmetry in the Standard Model. It's mathematically inevitable. Unfortunately proving reality is supersymmetric is not a sufficient condition to prove string physics. Still, we haven't seen it up to now; it's a prediction, and a successful one, and many physicists will see that as an increase in the credibility of string physics.
rj40 wrote:Have not heard of the elemental fermion findings. I don't know what it could mean.
Basically this shows that what remains is refinements of the Standard Model, not overturnings of it. At a sigma greater than five it's pretty much certain at this point. If there are particles creating dark mass, they do not have half-integer spins.

Do you understand the two great moieties, half-integer and integer spins, fermions and bosons? This strongly indicates that there are no more than four generations of bosons; i.e. no more than four forces. However, that's only speculative at this point. OTOH, the existence of only three generations of matter particles implies no more than four generations of force particles.
rj40 wrote:Ah, Bell's theore. I am not qualified to have an opinion. But if they are reproducible, I would think that is significant. Are the experimental results pretty clear, or sort of on the edge?
Sixteen sigma last I heard. This is about as certain as gravity.

There're pretty good explanation of Bell's Theorem and the Bell Test experiments around, including Wikipedia, and Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos. If you read The Dancing Wu Li Masters you should forget almost all of it, and read other sources, and then come back to it. It's not even wrong in a number of areas. It's visionary, but it's not very accurate.
rj40 wrote:My favorite theory of dark matter - I don't have a clue. But a fun one I have read about is that it is an effect of our universe interacting with another universe. That would neat. And potentially informative.
Actually, it's more a matter of another dimension, but in fact defining that dimension defines a multiverse/metaverse/überverse "right next to" ours. Sorta. You're not wrong, just insufficiently descriptive.

Now, me, I'm already pretty much convinced we've detected WIMPs and I think shortly we will have results confirming it from SuperKamiokaNDE.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Post Reply