The latest on Global warming.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Konrad the mediocre

Well-Known Member
In other words, he's arguing that sub-ATOM-ic particles are "more fundamental".. "than the atom"!
They are. Atoms have structure so they can't be fundamental (apologies to Democritus). If you want to "see" these particles head to one of the poles and watch the auroras.

All I can say is that it's fortunate science is not based on popular vote. Apparently science only counts when cool gadgets are created from it.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
They are. Atoms have structure so they can't be fundamental (apologies to Democritus). If you want to "see" these particles head to one of the poles and watch the auroras.


All I can say is that it's fortunate science is not based on popular vote. Apparently science only counts when cool gadgets are created from it.
Hi. Actually you've provided nothing new, but being difficult to let go is a given so I don't blame you at all for thinking otherwise. It takes genuine effort to deprogram yourself and grok this. That's understood.

You say "They are." clearly meaning subatomic "particles" are more fundamental than the atom, deriving direct from the context. But given there were no subatomic "particles" because there's nothing there one can definitively call a particle without butchering the common understanding of the term just to force them into reality, your complaint simply amounts to a tautology. Same goes for "Atoms have structure so they can't be fundamental (apologies to Democritus)" only you should be apologizing to Leucippus.

Far as 'If you want to "see" these particles head to one of the poles and watch the auroras' - nice try, but wrong again. Apparently you've failed to notice that protons and neutrons are (mercifully) excluded from the chart. Auroras are reportedly caused by "solar wind" blowing protons (and electrons which don't exist) from the Sun to Earth's atmosphere where they ionize Nitrogen and some other gas which then react with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the visual effect. Now why isn't a proton considered a "subatomic" particle? Good question.

It's like this. First you get the neutron. Also not "subatomic" for the same reason,.. which turns immediately, automatically, into a proton when needed to balance the charge. A proton is a neutron with a charge. And that's all there really is at the most basic material level. No negative imaginary material need apply. But earlier you said it was the atom, wtf? Yes, but what is Hydrogen without imaginary "electron particles"? A proton. That's what and why. So if anyone had said the neutron is really the most fundamental material since they precede protons, I wouldn't argue the point because it effectively amounts to the same thing.

All I can say is that it's fortunate science is not based on popular vote. Apparently science only counts when cool gadgets are created from it.
Har har. Pointless non sequitur duly noted.
 

Konrad the mediocre

Well-Known Member
Hi. Actually you've provided nothing new, but being difficult to let go is a given so I don't blame you at all for thinking otherwise. It takes genuine effort to deprogram yourself and grok this. That's understood.

You say "They are." clearly meaning subatomic "particles" are more fundamental than the atom, deriving direct from the context. But given there were no subatomic "particles" because there's nothing there one can definitively call a particle without butchering the common understanding of the term just to force them into reality, your complaint simply amounts to a tautology. Same goes for "Atoms have structure so they can't be fundamental (apologies to Democritus)" only you should be apologizing to Leucippus.

Far as 'If you want to "see" these particles head to one of the poles and watch the auroras' - nice try, but wrong again. Apparently you've failed to notice that protons and neutrons are (mercifully) excluded from the chart. Auroras are reportedly caused by "solar wind" blowing protons (and electrons which don't exist) from the Sun to Earth's atmosphere where they ionize Nitrogen and some other gas which then react with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the visual effect. Now why isn't a proton considered a "subatomic" particle? Good question.

It's like this. First you get the neutron. Also not "subatomic" for the same reason,.. which turns immediately, automatically, into a proton when needed to balance the charge. A proton is a neutron with a charge. And that's all there really is at the most basic material level. No negative imaginary material need apply. But earlier you said it was the atom, wtf? Yes, but what is Hydrogen without imaginary "electron particles"? A proton. That's what and why. So if anyone had said the neutron is really the most fundamental material since they precede protons, I wouldn't argue the point because it effectively amounts to the same thing.



Har har. Pointless non sequitur duly noted.
I really don't know what you're saying. Protons and neutrons are certainly subatomic particles but they also have structure. Protons are also not "a neutron with a charge". Neutrons, have an electric dipole moment. If you're arguing that electrons don't exist, that's possibly true but not really relevant.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Protons and neutrons are certainly subatomic particles but they also have structure. {...} If you're arguing that electrons don't exist, that's possibly true
GIVEN: "electrons don't exist"
Hydrogen is then an ATOM consisting of exactly 1 proton and nothing else {no other substance}.
Then: Element {Hydrogen} = Smallest "Chemical Compound" = ATOM = PROTON
GIVEN: Not just electrons, but zero subatomic "particles" exist as anything honestly describable as material or substantive
Then: the the smallest substance, material once again = Proton = ATOM = Neutron
Protons are also not "a neutron with a charge". Neutrons, have an electric dipole moment.
So a proton IS "a neutron with a charge" minus a teensy dipole moment (also a teensy apparent mass).

I should also mention here than Einstein's whole "space / time" notion is criminally misguided poppycock (as Tesla repeatedly tried to warn him) along with its supposed replacement Quantum Mechanics, though one or the other can be and obviously have been used to successfully predict and are credited with explaining just about everything (via circular argument and "evidence" of course). Neither actually ever explains reality satisfactorily, let alone elegantly. They explain fictional versions which fundamentally contradict both reason and each other. Also, that all still being presented as and presumed to be "subatomic particles" is actually unique, semi stable, geometric patterns of energy, meaning intersections of actual "magnetism" and/or "electricity" (or dielectricity to be precise, but to truly understand all three terms requires a ton of reading and independent thought).
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Member
Trying to tread lightly so as not stray too violently from practically everyone's comfortable understanding of these things, I've neglected to mention until now that there is, OF COURSE, a "substance" or "element" smaller than any atom and far more quantitative than Hydrogen in the Universe. One that nearly everyone simply took for granted, including Einstein, prior to him going off the deep end, doubling down on his space / time fabric nonsense, and thereby ultimately misdirecting the entire world including himself. That thing many now refer to as "the Aether" with a capital "A" to distinguish it from the organic chemical ether. The missing medium required, for example, for electromagnetic radiation to successfully propagate from point A to point B.

Since sound clearly requires a gas, liquid, or solid to ever reach and excite your eardrums how could anyone presume that visible light, for instance, requires no medium through which to travel in order to reach your eyeball? You could bang on your drum all day in a "vacuum" and never hear a beat, but we're somehow supposed to believe that light exits The Sun and travels through absolutely nothing ("the vacuum of space") to get to Earth. The Aether is actually everywhere and the ultimate source/drain of all energy. Boy howdy, could I go on... but I'll give it a rest now, lol!
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Member
According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether and also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.[2] The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been {STUPIDLY!} interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists.[3]
 

Grumblenuts

Member
On topic, Hawaii just dodged the worst of a monster hurricane that dropped the second biggest rainfall in recorded history. Yes, that is just a weather event. Here's the (global) climate change connection: The highest rainfall event in recorded history occurred less than a year ago. When stuff begins happening at higher frequencies the climate has changed.

Note for the day on the sidetrack: One can follow links from above to read all about how the physics establishment has convinced itself there's no Aether, but it all amounts to circular reasoning. What we consider space is preceded by the Aether. No Aether, no space, nothing. Black Holes are the only places devoid of Aether. The only true vacuums or voids we know of. Light cannot travel through a true vacuum. That's why Black Holes just appear dark to us like nothing else. Which is sufficient proof that electromagnetic radiation needs The Aether in order to travel through "the vacuum of space." Also interesting, it seems that Einstein argued that The Aether was actually not incompatible with "special relativity" as late as 1924 which went totally ignored so he just stopped mentioning it publicly.
 
Last edited:

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
It has been proven without any doubts that the earth's temperature has risen + 4 degree's in a 100 years, caused by man-made pollution. Yet the Trump Environmental people have their heads in the sand. saying it is not so. with their hand out for the money from the polluters who want no change, so they can make money.
Ah, this ol' tale, lol.

Yes, there is climate change. That part is true. However, there is no consensus as to the cause. There's a big push to make it seem like the change is being caused by human beings and there have been a number of propaganda pieces exposed where people have tried to erroneously link certain geological events with climate change. (ie, the hungry polar bear video that went viral on YouTube is one of the most famous ones)

However, don't mix this with your politics because CC and anti-climate change are both positions that can mean big bucks for the people pushing it. Trump isn't anti-climate change because of his ethics, it's a political maneuver about as typically corny as "Make America Great Again". The Democrats are for it because then they can push things like carbon tax and God knows what else. Soon we'll be building a net just in case the stars fall down. It's happened in the past. It can happen again. Scientists say we're actually overdue. We should have had space lasers yesterday. More funding for NASA, please. For the good of humanity, of course.

Yada...

yada...
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Hogwash. And my, big surprise that some like you never tire of dissembling for personal political and/or financial benefit, genuine or imagined. That's nice. However, the worldwide scientific community generally cares about sustaining life and health on this planet instead. For reality, read, starting at: Does it matter if the climate consensus is 97% or 99.9%?
Okay. Here's an exercise for you.

Get the most sophisticated arguments for both sides of the Climate Change argument. (yes, there are scientists who argue both sides with considerable data) Read it. Then tell me how you, personally, can tell the difference between the one telling the truth and the one that is false without simply pointing me to read someone else's explanation.

The purpose of this is to show that you likely don't know that much about climate change to make an informed decision about it in the first place. You bring up scientists and their "world-wide community" as if they were a singular body of one opinion which they are not. Further, you cite them as if they are the benchmark of truth devoid of- as you say it- personal, political, or financial influence or bias....which is so far from reality I'm not sure why you mentioned it. We can send each other to read this and that all day, but how can you or I personally verify the information in any of it as being true? Because if we can't we're only relying on hearsay and making decisions based on our opinion of who or what is more truthful.

Do I know the earth is not suffering from man-made climate change? No. But I see no evidence of it. I do, for one, see evidence of these scientists who so love humanity attempting to find ways to control the weather and that this argument of climate change will eventually swing towards a solution that involves funding various weather manipulation policies and such. (and no, that is far from conspiracy theory. It's as basic as controlling river-flow for irrigation, power, etc)

I'd say don't jump on the hundred or so hype trains being shot at you these days. Stay calm and wait for rock-solid proof of a thing before accepting it and even then make sure you know what they want from you. In exchange for the so-called global terrorist menace that wants to do everything from anthrax us to death (what happened with that?) to destroying our civilization through emails (utterly laughable) what was taken from you, personally, and how far did they get in combating so called terrorists....or Russian spies...or Communists...?
 

Grumblenuts

Member
man-made climate change?
I see no evidence of it.
"Okay. Here's an exercise for you."
Given the ice core data clearly indicates us entering a cooling phase right now, explain why the Earth has been warming, now at record pace, without any human intervention?
Meanwhile, I'll be sure to "Stay calm and wait for rock-solid proof of a thing before accepting it" from just any old internet schlepper.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, I'll be sure to "Stay calm and wait for rock-solid proof of a thing before accepting it" from just any old internet schlepper.
Stay calm and wait for proof...this is good advice.

You might not know everything, but by refusing to act on information without demonstrable proof, at least you can avoid being a fool more often than not.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
You might not know everything, but by refusing to act on information without demonstrable proof, at least you can avoid being a fool more often than not.
Yep, still don't wanna know everything and calmly waiting... Never for proof though. That's just a silly thing to expect on an internet forum. Nah, heck, just about any departure from the pure bluster you've blessed us with so far would come as a breath of fresh air. Hey, I know! How about taking a stab at addressing the simple question I asked you above? Too topical or what?
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Yep, still don't wanna know everything and calmly waiting... Never for proof though. That's just a silly thing to expect on an internet forum. Nah, heck, just about any departure from the pure bluster you've blessed us with so far would come as a breath of fresh air. Hey, I know! How about taking a stab at addressing the simple question I asked you above? Too topical or what?
Hmmm. Try this one...

I'm not offering any proof or counterargument- though I can easily fish links for you (I'm not calling that proof) - because in the end how are we supposed to decide what is proof and what isn't besides what we believe it to be? You'll discredit mines. I'll discredit yours. You'll fish more links to support your opinion. I'll do the same. Neither of us know what the hell we're talking about. So what does this prove? Sometimes the weather for a particular day is markedly different than it was for decades. Must have left my car running I guess...

You are very certain that the scientists of the world are correct. Okay. I understand this. I believe their certainty does not qualify as proof. That there are always certainties pushed by all sorts of accredited individuals and organizations that turn out to be false in the future. You double-take and look back and realize you didn't really understand or seek actual proof, you just believed in correlations, suggestions, in the direness and/or enthusiasm of the message, and the constant push of a particular idea over others while seeking to avoid the ridicule and insults that people- like yourself- would use to bludgeon people into complicity should they disagree with the "obvious truth".

Oh, and ice cores do not tell you why climate has changed, only that climate has changed., as it has been doing for millions of years. Correlation is not causation.
 
Last edited:

gutmeister

Well-Known Member
ok too long to read, who's right?

But for the climate change skeptics, I understand the sentiment. To me, it's not necessarily a binary thought process though. The people who are 100% confident that man-made climate change is a hoax are just hopeless, but I hope other people realize there's at least some chance it's true. In that case, it's more of a Pascal's Wager I think for the human race? If we're wrong, and humans aren't impacting the climate, how much worse off are we by implementing at least the low-hanging fruit of conservation? And if the scientists are right, then we'll be happy we did take the warning seriously.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
ok too long to read, who's right?

But for the climate change skeptics, I understand the sentiment. To me, it's not necessarily a binary thought process though. The people who are 100% confident that man-made climate change is a hoax are just hopeless, but I hope other people realize there's at least some chance it's true. In that case, it's more of a Pascal's Wager I think for the human race? If we're wrong, and humans aren't impacting the climate, how much worse off are we by implementing at least the low-hanging fruit of conservation? And if the scientists are right, then we'll be happy we did take the warning seriously.
For clarification, I'm not saying that human beings are not impacting the planet. They most certainly are and the effects have been noted by many as beginning to upset a greater balance in the world, BUT the thing is that even with massive things like deforestation, the effects of this- while certainly coming down the line- have not yet emerged beyond the localized destruction the create. They haven't create significant global changes yet.

This is one of the reasons why I am suspicious of this climate change thing. There's a lot of things threatening the stability of the environment. However, the state, the media, and scientists seem to be awfully choosey about what to cry about. Drilling oil in the oceans? Fracking? Deforestation? The destabilizing effects of homogenization of our food supply through genetic structuring? The effects of the poisonous air hovering above a number of the most densely populated cities on earth? Completely fine. But a big, abstract boogey man like climate change? We've got to deal with that.
 

gutmeister

Well-Known Member
BUT the thing is that even with massive things like deforestation, the effects of this- while certainly coming down the line- have not yet emerged beyond the localized destruction the create. They haven't create significant global changes yet.

..But a big, abstract boogey man like climate change? We've got to deal with that.
Umm, what? I've honestly never encountered an opinion like yours. You acknowledge the reckoning will come due to humans' actions "down the line", but the call it the abstract boogey man?

Idk man that's a new one for me.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Umm, what? I've honestly never encountered an opinion like yours. You acknowledge the reckoning will come due to humans' actions "down the line", but the call it the abstract boogey man?

Idk man that's a new one for me.
Murder is specific. Evil is abstract.
Deforestation is specific. Climate change is abstract.

What I was saying is that things like deforestation will definitely have an impact on the world in the future if it continues without change, but serious environmental impact and climate change are not necessarily the same thing. It would take something considerable to change this in such a small period.

You know volcanoes, right? They can push ash into the environment so quickly and to such an extent that they can seriously threaten to change the climate of the world. We've been having volcano's go off all the time in our time here on earth. Each volcano puts out incredible amounts of force. How can we be sure volcano's are not the significant source of climate change rather than mankind and his various doings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.