Unfortunately the belief, as you describe, means that a TOE that includes life, will never be achieved.. IMO 'Ole Roemer had no idea about quantum entanglement, and neither did Maxwell, Einstein or others. All were working to some form of "aether" or medium of some sort, back ground. Which quantum entanglement finally debunks entirely. Minkowski/Einstien space time and quantum entanglement phenomena are totally incompatible as far as I can tell... So which is the correct paradigm? M/E space time or Quantum entanglement?
Yes it was. thank; but article (not the scientists) gives the impression it is hard to measure IR radiation. It is not - simple calorimeter will do.* Newton used a quartz prism and basically a thermometer, to show there was radiant energy coming from prism dispersed sun light with both shorter (UV) and longer (near IR) wave lengths. * 10 cent thermistor inside a well insulated box with a "pin hole" entrance in this age.
I have never commented on whether or not a TOE will some day be found. - hope not, as that would kill interest in physics. AFAIK there is no observable conflict between QM and GR (or the special case of SR). One deals with the very tiny and the other with the very large scale experiments (in 4D) I.e. after months of accumulating tiny time dilation "errors" from earth based frame POV a very minor re-set of GPS satellite clocks is needed, I think. The "3D special" effects are hard to see even on AU scale distances. The famous bending of stellar "sun-grazing" light during eclipse of the sun was "measured" in Brazil and Africa but too small even in high resolution photo graphs in one of those locations to even be detected! All I have been doing is showing that your ideas have no supporting evidence and conflict with very well confirmed theory and many experiments. I.e. are silly, egotistical, non-sense. BTW, no scientist, certainly not Einstein believed in Aether after the Stellar aberration experiments killed its last hope. - Idea that motion thru the aether could not be detected as earth was "dragging the local aether" with it in its orbit about the sun - i.e. earth was not "moving thru the aether." Also Einstein certainly knew that QM predicted entanglement. Why he and two others suggested experiments to test that "spooky action at a distance" - they were confident QM was wrong, at least in this prediction, but the prediction was confirmed.
I believe if you Google the issue you will find many discussions about this conflict... and perhaps, if interested we can entertain the idea of starting another thread topic just on this issue alone?
probably correct except that they went on to make use of a medium regardless of what you wish to call it. ( a medium that was able to restrict and govern the speed of light perhaps? Permeability, permittivity, vacuum energy, vacuum density blah blah and so on... a medium and an aether of sorts by proxy) What is Dark energy other than another product of an aether of some form. [vacuum energy aether] The deep psychological security blanket provided by an aether and all it's pseudo variations is not so easy to dismiss. IMO and science appears to just keep on reworking the same idea (Aether) using a different variation every time. Why were they confident that QM was wrong? Dare I suggest because they believed it was incompatible with what they believed to be true [ Minkowski/Einstein Space time] I am not sure what case you are actually putting forward... you appear to be in contradiction.
No. Again wrong. (or just too ignorant to be wrong?) No medium but space required. See why below. This link (http://www.maxwells-equations.com/) could help you, especially the video there, which tries to explain the meaning of the math in Maxwell's equations, which are given below, much bigger than desired but had trouble getting any to copy so had to use following: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note there is no reference to any medium but the equations do allow for the effects of mater (like clear glass) if some is present where the EM wave we call light is.The equations unify four already known experimentally known facts: Equation 1: Gauss' Law & Equation 2: Gauss' Magnetism Law & Equation 3: Faraday's Law & Equation 4: Ampere's Law but Ampere only knew that real currents can generate magnetic fields the H which depends only on the magnitude and flow geometry. The B field is the H field "amplified" by the near by magnetic material (what and its geometry too) Or the B field can exist from some materials without any macro currents you can measure in amperes. Likewise the E field depend only on the magnitude of electric charge and its geometry. The ratios of D/E and B/H and J/E have names and units (not just dimensionless numbers) called respectively permittivity (units are farads/meter), permeability, and conductivity their values of these ratios are easily measured (in the lab or a vacuum made in in the lab) The units of E, the electric field are volts/meter so D has units of farad/ volt. Often the permittivity is called the dielectric constant - a bad name even though for most materials it is nearly a constant. For room temperature water, which is intrinsically polarized (both H on one side of the O which is the negative side) it has the value of ~80 as these H2O molecule get lined up by an applied field as you see in second illustration below. But at near boiling temperature the alignment is less and the value drops to about 30. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now Maxwell added the "Not J" term on the right side of equation 4, which he called the "displacement current" and knew there was no real currents in space (J = 0). Then, being a good mathematician, he recognized equations 3 & 4 (with no J) were easily reduced to one equation describing a wave and guessed that wave was light* (and other EM radiation). - A few years later Herts confirmed Maxwell's guess using a "spark gap" and another with smaller gap and some wire (serving as "receiving antennae" a short distance away and observed tiny spark in the small gap, which had only Maxwell's waves transferring the energy to it - no wire connections between the two spark gaps. More discussion, if you really care to lessen your ignorance here: http://www.maxwells-equations.com/summary.php * The wave equation Maxwell derived contains the speed of the wave and it was the speed at which Roemer had measured light travels at thur vacuum. with OBSERVATION of Io's eclipses being delay by ~17 minutes when earth was on the farther side of its orbits from Jupiter. I. e. when light had to travel 2AU longer path to earth. SUMMARY: Not only do we have a well tested theory and many dozens of completely different experiments showing your hypothesis** which is totally without any supporting evidence (except you egotistical belief you can't be in error) is CONTRA FACTUAL non-sense as all measuring the same speed of light in vacuum. Further more your claim is self contradictory! So is not even logically possible! For example, quite commonly the three identical satellites (identical inertia) which I'll call A, B, & C are at very different distances for a single GPS receiver which I'll call R. (R and the area around it have only one set of inertia properties.) The A to R distance may be 1, that of the B to R may be 3, and that of the C to may be 6 in some distance scale. GPS works on the arrival time delay which are in the 1, 3, and 6; yet all the inertia pairs, such as at R & A or R & B or R & C are IDENTICAL. Ergo your theory predicts all will always have the same delay based on the fact all three sets of inertias are identical. It predicts that GPS can not possibly work as it assumes the delay is ONLY due to these three identical inertia sets - in your false suggestion - not the time it take an EM wave to travel from a satellite to R as in the accepted theory. But, hey, don't let that bother you. That might tarnish your ego. It is just one more contra factuals to add to the list of many dozens. Keep up the "good work" - Keep fixing what ain't broke. Even Einstein believed in "hidden variable" not quantum mechanics as did not think "God rolled dice." But, unlike you, when the entangled experiments show what QM predicted much to Einstein's surprise, he learned - too bad you are so egotistically stubborn and can't do that ** A claim that light does not / can not / travel thru vacuum and that transit time delays observed are due the inertia of matter.
I guess proving scientific incompetence makes me guilty of egocentric behavior does it? There is good science and there is bad science: Example of bad science: The sheer fact that cosmologist can plot a 12+billion year old universe with probably non-existent stars (medium sized stars last for about 4 billion years) is evidence enough to suggest science has a HUGE credibility problem when it comes to theoretic s. Then go on to make use of a vacuum energy aether to support dark energy theories based on a potentially very different universe to what they reckon there is. Science can't even define energy in a competent fashion! And you claim I have an ego problem... bah! Example of Good science: "oops we made a mistake and we will attempt to rectify it..." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
James Maxwell, a devout Christian, made his famous calculations, (1865) premised on the existence of a Luminiferous Aether [**and the divine hand of God ~ I might add] which was debunked later in 1887, 22 years after Maxwell published his amazing works. If you asked Maxwell how his famous calculations and unification theory would function if an aether was NOT present he would have probably said: "eh? You are being egotistical for suggesting such an absurd possibility" eh... so what does theoretically restrict the speed of light to an invariant 'c' across a vacuum? any ideas that you would care to share with an ignorant world, would be most welcome.. The thing to realize is that: Just because a theory has significant utility and is enormously useful doesn't make it correct. It just is only a very useful model and that is all. Now I shouldn't need to mention this and will be accused of being egotistical for trying to tell you your job but... it seems that you and others fail to remember this very important point. [due to egoistical delusions most probably]
I wonder what Maxwell and or Einstein would have said when presented with the following proposition: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe the word "spooky" would come to mind! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a good idea what R Feynman and Heisenberg, regards "entanglement phenomena" would say...
Not if you had actually proved anything, but you have only made ill defined / vague claims like "anomaly" dual COGs, etc. The "egotistical" is earned by consistent refusal to learn, never discussing the calculations showing your beliefs to be false or even illogical, but responding basicly with even wider and wilder claims: including SIDs, nuclear melt down to dry coughs, etc. are due to your vague causal postulates, which just get new names when the old is disproven. Not longer a "gravitational instability," is the cause of everything bad, etc. Sorry I spent much to much time trying to post Maxwell's equations in reasonable size - now way past my bed time. I only read you first line - easy to shoot down, so did. I'll read more tomorrow but probably not before lunch time.
Moderator note: Quantum Quack you're dragging this thread of its topic - if you want to peddle your wares, do it elsewhere.
Local attitude to climate change after the release of the latest IPCC report: src: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ime-minister-tony-abbott-20141104-11gh7k.html he had previously stated: So one can only wonder at what he knows that others don't when he can make such an incredible statement in the face of the IPCC report. Sort of reminds me of that Simpson's animated sitcom, where after the unveiling of an electric sign that reads something to the effect of "In the event of a nuclear melt down, run for you lives", Homer laughs ironically, saying "Fools! In the event of a nuclear melt down there will be no electricity to power the sign."
I would prefer those false, non-sense, illogical posts of QQ remain as a large part of the resistance to positive action on the problem of GW is due to similar people, who have read scientific articles with equally poor under standing and then for various reason post that GW is not largely man-make but just normal climate variation, etc. Some have financial interest in making no change from an oil based economy and than motatives them to try to counter well established fact, as QQ, began doing with his "a gravitational instability is the real cause of GW" and then when that was shown to be non-existent, the cause of GW became the "rapid shift in earth's COG" but I showed that to be at least 1,000 times slower and smaller than the seasonal melting of snow and ice so QQ postulated new causes (and then they were shown to be false, etc.) My point is that QQ can't learn, as his ego is too big to admit error, just like those who deny man's dominate role in GW can't learn. Perhaps they have no attachment to QQ's non-sense and thus can see it for what it is. Perhaps they may then begin to question their own non-sense - learn that the cause of GW is man's unique changes - release of enormous quanties of solar energy (stored over million or so years long ago) in the form of fossil fuel in a few decades. I.e. learn that just because some can babble scientific reassuring words and post them in a scientific forum, which they have read with little understanding, does not mean their "theories" refuting well established scientific facts are true. In the case of GW, the energy system is broken and we should try to fix it, even if it may be impossible to do that now. It is the honorable thing to do. Switching globally to sugar cane alcohol for transportation fuel ASAP is feasible*, and would create many low skill jobs, in tropical lands for the currently unemployed there making them consumers of what more advance economies make, (More higher skill jobs produced too) and is a renewable, not finite energy system, that requires less land than exist as "abandoned pasture" and has lower cost per mile driven than using gasoline does (with no subsidies). * Could be done in less time than the decade which would be required to get most gasoline cars retired or converted if the oil companies would get out of the way with their false TV ads denying the advantages of sugar cane alcohol and telling the lie that doing so would destroy the rain forests, etc. - Not one forest tree would need to be cut! QQ & other denier's of man-caused GW are ignorant corrupters of science to their own foolish ends. QQ even mets Einstein's definition of insane - Believes that three repetitions of the same IDENTICAL inertial systems when GPS uses three different identical satellites to produce three different delays to ONE receiver. I. e. believes the identical inertias somehow create three different illusions of transit time delays! Rejects the accepted POV that the three different separation distances (which he seems to think for light or EM wave are all zero) make three real, but different, time dealys.
I don't recall saying anything about deleting posts, only that QQ was bordering on proselytizing his pet theories which is wholly inappropriate.
551 words of gibberish... I suggest you actually read my posts .. before claiming I wrote anything... try posts #469 Maxwell and the Luminiferous Aether - refutation to your accusation of inflated ego. #468 Evidence of massive misinterpretation by mainstream cosmology leading to massive errors in BB theorizing. - refutation to your accusation of inflated ego. #465 Evidence that science is repeatedly drawn to make use of some sort of aether currently vacuum energy or dark energy aether...- refutation to your accusation of inflated ego. #470 Clearly demonstrates that I do indeed know of a mechanism to facilitate the phenomena of universal quantum entanglement which then provides insight into what I have referred to as an anomaly as dramatically indicated by the Dark Flow Phenomena and why this anomaly would impact locally, both with in organic and non-organic forms. - refutation to your accusation of inflated ego. I might add regarding the IPCC report. They have absolutely no idea how to deal with people... What do you think happens when you tell someone they have 100 years to get their act together? Gosh dang it! there goes my inflated ego again! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the 800 reputed scientist seem to say: "Hey 40 million people of Sao Paulo, regarding your 80 odd days of drinking water remaining, YOU have 100 years to get your act together.. "
Imagines what would happen to the Amazonian Rain forests if the world became dependent on sugar cane to fuel it's avarice. [avarice in this context means "greedy money grabbing bastards"] If I am not mistaken the Brazilian organisation, Embrapa have been working on fuel diversification strategies for years. [Not to mention other consumables] link: https://www.embrapa.br/ I did a tour of Embrapa in 2006 (Campina Grande) and they were at the time heavily involved in alternative fuel development. The sheer scale of arable land acre per gallon might initially sound good but I fail to see how conservation of natural forests would be a resultant outcome. as the world moved towards ethanol based fuel use. and what that means to the CO2 situation when all the factors are considered. Not to mention the incredible pollution aspect [ take a walk in Santiago, Chile and you would know what I mean ] However I admire the logic you use, regarding job creation for the unskilled, and this alone may be a significant encouragement.
Billy T. Seriously First GW is now CC ( climate change ) , because the planet has shown to be overall , cooling rather than getting warmer And have you not by now , investigated the leaked e-mails back in 2009 about the IPCC , EAU And that the SPM ( summary for policymakers ) was months ahead of the actual science by group 1 , which neither had anything in common with the other , at all And that this was what the media , governments , politicians were shown knowing full well that NONE of them would really understand any of the info. GW is all about politics and making money and power GW never did have anything to do Humans affect or effect on our planets climate or weather
I'm old and lazy - I still keep my milk in the "Ice box" - doing my shair of preserving verbal history. Yes the rise in air temperature has slowed in last few years as top graphs below show. Simple 2-term model of the lower graph is as good as any other and predicted this slowing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Black curve of left graph shows the noise in data.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Green sin wave, curve (MDV) has period of ~61 years The red curve term is the GW driver - a continuous increase in temperature but in the decreasing phase, the green curve can (or almost) over power it as is the case of Hiatus now in progress. I don't know why this ST +MVD = Black curve models T so well - It is just empirical fact. More here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.010722 Please note that the current slow down was not in progress when this model predicted it would soon start. If model continus valid, we probably have ~20 more years of little GW but then the green and red curves are "working together" to rapidly increase the temperate. Guy McPherson may be correct man becomes extinct about 2030, but I think that happens (if profits and big oil still are in control) about 60 later (2090) when red and green curves are again both driving T upward. Quite possibly true I don't pay much attention to IPCC, etc. as do what they do, with considerably less delay and much greater ability to "think out side the box." - I.e. I also read research reports and make my own evaluations of them. I think there is very serious possibility of great danger on time scale that will effect my grandchildren. So make as many well documented comments as I can and occasionally add some not yet IPCC recognized risks with my knowledge of Physics. For example, only I, I think, have noted than tropical rain forest burning can with help of the Hadley cells rapidly blacken the high altitude clouds now reflecting ~2/3 of the sunlight back into space. Making in 10 days or less a 100% increase (or more) in the sunlight they absorb. - A huge and rapid "step up" in Earth's solar heating as the Hadley cell circulation covers at least half the Earth's cross section for solar absorption (From -30 to +30 latitude). Here is a 2nd example of serious but smaller positive feed back risk I have noted that IPCC has not: Using just the reported concentration of CH4 measured at the bottom of the new large holes in the Siberian tundra, and my knowledge of physics, I built a simple model based on the known gas (air and CH4's) molecular density and the ideal gas law of thermal expansion. (Linear in kelvin temperature) I knew that the CH4 is lighter than air and should rise up from the 0C bottom temperature until its fractional concentration did not over power the colder conditions at the bottom. I knew that concentration from the news report, but did not know one item - the surface air temperature. - I solved the equations of my model to find that - and it checked with the facts. Thus, there probably is, as my model assumed, flow up of CH4 on the outer sides of the hole with warmer air sucked down the center (or possibly the converse). That means I discovered yet another positive feed-back system as that sinking air warmer than 0C will melt more tundra at the bottom of the hole, much more rapidly than surface heat can get there via conduction thru 100 feet (meters?) of ice to the bottom. Yes, you'r correct here. - mainly the oil interest and their lobbyist have control. Blocking the use of less costly per mile driven sugar cane alcohol, with is non-polluting, renewable, and actually slightly CO2 negative. Here your are very wrong. Have fallen for big oil's propaganda. Probably because you lack the scientific ability /knowledge to critically evaluate the literature and separate facts from self serving vested interest propaganda. - There are billions of oil dollars at risk - annual losses for big oil if the world did switch to sugar cane based fuel. I bet you believe their lie that a global switch would destroy the rain forests, etc. when in fact there is more abandoned pasture than required to grow the cane to fuel all the world's cars. Especially in Africa, "Slash and Burn" and then move on (as in pre-civil war cotton growing South) was very common, if not the norm. NOT ONE FOREST TREE NEEDS TO BE CUT in a global switch to sugar cane alcohol. Big oil has played you for a fool paying more than need be to drive your car; while putting the lives of most young grand children at grave risk, for their current profits. If you doubt that, read: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-80#post-3242310
