The Australian Government’s climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, says a global agreement must be reached to successfully reduce the world’s carbon emissions and has urged action without delay. Indeed Professor Garnaut went so far as to suggest in a televised address that, “On a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation on climate change mitigation would lead to consequences that would haunt humanity until the end of time.”
On the issue of the need for a worldwide response Professor Garnaut suggested:
1. An International Adaptation Assistance Commitment would provide new adaptation assistance to developing countries that join the mitigation effort
2. Early sectoral agreements would seek to ensure that the main trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries face comparable carbon prices across the world, including metals and international civil aviation and shipping
3. A World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement is required to support international mitigation agreements and to establish rules for trade measures against countries thought to be doing too little on mitigation
On the issue of an Australian emissions trading scheme, the Professor suggested:
1. The Establishment of an independent carbon bank with all the necessary powers to oversee the long-term stability of the scheme
2. Implementation of a transition period from 2010 to the conclusion of the Kyoto period (end 2012) involving fixed price permits
3. Credits to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries to address the failure of our trading partners to adopt similar policies
4. No permits to be freely allocated
5. Scheme coverage that is as broad as possible
Such a trading scheme would be very different to the European Model where I understand credits have been freely allocated and petrol, for example, is exempt.
Professor Garnaut has accepted the science of climate change as explained by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and sections of his earlier reports read like oversimplified versions of the IPCC reports.
Professor Garnaut is close to Australia’s Rudd Labor Government and this final report is likely to reflect Australian government thinking on this issue. The Australian Prime Minister, Kelvin Rudd, and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, have both used climate change as a vehicle for self promotion nationally and internationally and are deeply committed to the idea of a climate crisis.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review was commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. A Draft Report was released on 4 July 2008. The Supplementary Draft Report Targets and trajectories was released on 5 September 2008. The Final Report was released yesterday on 30 September 2008. All documents can be downloaded from the Garnaut Review website.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“that would haunt humanity until the end of time.”
How do you deal with people who utter such hyperbolic clap-trap?
you mean statements like this??
Senator Brown rejected the 550 parts per million option as “timid”. “The Garnaut option of 550 ppm will see the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and Ningaloo Reef, as well as the Australian Alps, and lead to 10 metre sea level rises,” he said. “That’s unthinkable.”
Bob Brown is delusional – he just did think it by being quoted.
In the Daily Telegraph today Terry McCran, their economic columnist has an interesting analysis of the Garnault report.
A couple of quick quotes:
“If the Prime Minister persists with his ambition for a global agreement to reduce emissions, he won’t be preaching to the converted but an audience which will make the one he addressed in New York last week look like the MCG last Saturday.”
“The Garnaut report remains like its predecessor, the British Stern report, an uneasy mix of religion married to dodgy economic and statistical analysis. ”
“So the cost will be marginal out to 2020? Sorry, it will destroy the economy. It will destroy the economy if everyone cuts. It will destroy the economy if we go wandering off like Anabaptists wandering aimlessly through Europe in the Middle Ages.
Garnaut’s modelling of the economic costs comes from the same guys and the same computers that predict the Budget surplus each year.
Last May they predicted it would be $10.6 billion in the 2007-08 year. It came in at $27 billion. The difference is equivalent to 1.5 per cent of GDP.”
It can be found here:-
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24426093-5014103,00.html
Guano is being completely misleading with his references to “on the balance of probability”. This clearly implies that he has done a proper weighting of all the probable outcomes, as in a standard probability tree, and has determined the outcome that most closely reflects those weightings.
I can find no evidence in his report that he has done any such thing. It has the same stench as the infamous “90% certainty” figure that a mere 5 or 6 of the IPCC “old mates” plucked out of their bums for AR4.
True, it is early and I am still wading through the Guano bumf. If anyone else has seen anything that looks like a probability assessment then please let us know where to view it.
The sad thing is that Garnaut is being paid for this out of the public purse.
Save your time Motty, nothing this carpet bagger says is worth it.
Computer models again! 😉
Everywhere in the world of consultancy we see people who hire those they know will come up with the answer they want to hear. And we see these whores who will come up with the goods.
What was Garnaut thinking? Relying on the United Nations for science? And of course he’s an incompetent economist who clearly knows nothing about the nuts and bolts energy choices we face.
Why ought the Garnaut report have any weight ascribed to it at all?
Now these leftists are practicing a rendition of Stalin show-trials where Stalin affects to be a person of merciful and timid nature worried about the condemnation of the party if he let his natural merciful nature show forth on these “enemies of the revolution…”
Its like that gig in that everytime you hear Garnaut announce anything, in the very same media grab you have a chorus of idiots condemning Garnaut for being too moderate. For choosing targets too ineffectual and risky in terms of the planets health.
Its like a two-step process with these leftist goons. First they try and tell everyone that science is all about some idea of consensus…. But in a nano-second they are trying to game their own consensus system.
I tell you your average dumb-leftist is nothing if not superstitious. He believes that him and his type CREATE reality and are not merely there to attempt to discover it.
The leftists really don’t have a sound concept of what TRUTH is. “What is truth…” they all might say. But they had an answer to it. It used to be what the party decided. The communist party decided truth after some debate. But now its the CONSENSUS. And in their little minds the idea is to get in quickly and push the consensus one way or the other and to their thinking that will influence the truth of things. They think their petty shenanigans actually determine reality or at the very least push reality one way or the other.
You used to get this sort of shabby thinking in philosophy and in politics. But it used to be that most of the hard sciences had resisted this sort of disgraceful idiocy.
But I guess its been a long time in coming. Because after all some of these clowns have for a long time thought that a cat can be both dead or alive simultaneously and that it snaps into one or the other state only on observation.
“Schrödinger’s Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If a Geiger counter detects radiation then the flask is shattered, releasing the poison which kills the cat. Quantum mechanics suggests that after a while the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not a mixture of alive and dead.”
You let this silliness loose in Physics unchallenged and you can expect it to take over everything sooner or later. You let this sort of stupidity get taken seriously in some sort of niche area of physics you can expect it to take over all of science like an horrid pandemic.
Schrodinger successfully performed a reduction to absurdity and these people were too stupid to realise it.
This quantum mechanics crowd must surely be top-heavy in dumb-leftists.
But its got to the stage that people are thinking that if it is their coterie programming the computer well that makes all the difference to the real world.
Ian Mott, you have my utmost admiration for attempting the Guano bumf.
Anyone who (thanks to the internet) will be quoted until the end of time with: “On a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation on climate change mitigation would lead to consequences that would haunt humanity until the end of time.” is a lost cause.
Any attempt at rigourous analysis has obviously been abandoned. If you ever find a probability tree or table type analysis please do tell, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
The Guano bumf is a pre-determiend outcome.
http://www.nocarbontaxes.org
“What was Garnaut thinking? Relying on the United Nations for science? ”
The UN does not do the research.
“What was Garnaut thinking? Relying on the United Nations for science? ”
The UN does not create the reports.
SJT Isn’t the IPCC a UN body?
graham: “They write reports and drink cocktails”
In that order?
I think not.
Graeme I think you’ll find the UN just summarizes research done by other people. The UN doesn’t do any of the research.
The IPCC/UN create the reports without referring to the individual report writers.
Geoff, what do you mean?
Yes, the UN write reports. That isn’t in dispute. The UN doesn’t conduct the research, that’s what we are discussing.
In the Guano Report, we find that the ETS is needed to protect rural Australia (and the GBR etc of course) from climate change, BUT under chapter 16 Sharing the burden, we read that
” Regional communities and industries are likely to be more vulnerable to these impacts (of ETS) than urban centres, due to their reliance on agriculture and other natural resource-based industries, and low levels of infrastructure stock. Regional communities, in particular farming regions,
have already been subject to structural change to a much greater extent than metropolitan centres in recent history (Productivity Commission 1998).
These are issues for policy in the longer-term future” Now that’s really comforting, knowing that for Guano the longer term does not begin before 2300.
“……the longer term does not begin before 2300”
That must be because it is “the end of times.”
I find it quite ironic how economists have embraced AGWing, much like it was a long, lost sibling.
Why have the calls for urgent and immediate cuts become so hysterical in the past few weeks?
Could it be that atmospheric CO2 levels are showing signs of levelling off, or dropping? If that’s the case then they’ll want to show that their cuts worked.
“Graeme I think you’ll find the UN just summarizes research done by other people. The UN doesn’t do any of the research.”
I think you’ll find (you moron) that I never once accused the UN of doing any science whatsoever.
Now lets go with the question again.
This is what I said and don’t be putting words in my mouth again you idiot:
“What was Garnaut thinking? Relying on the United Nations for science?”
Note. I”m not accusing the UN of doing anything remotely related to scientific research. So don’t screw up again NT.
Graham: “Schrodinger successfully performed a reduction to absurdity and these people were too stupid to realise it.”
Physicists are quite aware that the tale of Schroedinger’s cat was an attempt at a reduction ad absurdum. Trouble is quantum mechanics really is like that. We can’t determine both the momentum and the position of a particle with arbitrary accuracy. Schroedinger, among others (mostly the German Crowd), was bothered by the Copenhagen Interpretation which among others items stated that matter has a dual particle/wave nature that can both be observed but not a the same time. The Copenhagen Interpretation was what prompted Einstein’s retort “The ancient one does not play dice”.
Graeme, I think this is what confused everyone…
“What was Garnaut thinking? Relying on the United Nations for science? ”
See you do actually appear to be claiming the UN is doing science. Or else the statement doesn’t actually make any sense. Why do you think Garnaut is relying on the UN for science when they don’t do any, they merely summarise it.
Graeme, as usual it is you that are the blundering moron.
NT” “See you do actually appear to be claiming the UN is doing science.”
I don’t think so. You’d be pretty strange if you went to a gynaecologist to get your teeth done.
Understand now?
At the expense of sounding cynical, the first thought that went through Jabba’s head when reading about Professor Garnaut’s paper was that he has secured his tenure for the next decade…
Jan, your analogy fails. Garnaut isn’t relying on th UN for his science. The science was already done by someone else. Understand now?
I have only read Chapter 7, and have given up on it.
Can some one tell me why.
1. The carbon equivalent loads are only analysed on the basis of nation states and the populations they hold, and groups of nation states ie OECD, and only looks at the emmissions they create,or export, but no effort is expended to relate these emmissions to the land mass and sea areas these nation states occupy, or are responsible for.
If it was also done on the basis of area, including territorial waters, then it might have more balance, and the Europeans would look decidely sick. Funny about that.
2. Australia is identified as having one of the highest per capita emmisions loads of any country only exceeded by the likes of, Bahrain,Bolivia,Brunie,Kuwiat and Qatar.
The pattern here is obvious. It has little to do with what the people in these countries emit as a by product of their own consumption, but what they incur as an exporter of energy.
3. Given the immense carbon stores and exchanges that take place between the sea, land bio mass and air why is not equivalent credit given for the capacity of nation states to naturally sequester their own emmisions, and that of others. If it goes one way, why not the other.
3. Page 165 shows that Australia sequestration potential is huge, even by the limited standards employed in the document. eg Mackey’s estimate of 136Mtco2e for the annual removal by gum trees in the SE is about 1/4 of all our emmisions.
If we can offset our carbon emmissions from power stations by the use of natural resources then why not. Why does it have to have a cost penalty.Why cannot the carbon accounting system include credits for sea and land biomass.
4. The comment to the effect that Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol precludes Australia being allowed to be credited for the net removal by pre 1990 plantations of 24.1Mt co2e, has to be a nonsense.
5. I still cant get over the total idiocy of system that penalises a country for the trees it cuts down, and exports as wood chip to be consumed by others, eg Japan who then try to redeem themselves, invest in forest plantations here in Australia to grow trees it gets carbon credits for, thereby consuming our prescious ground water resources,which were being used to grow export crops.
But the real cause for concern is the need for Garnaut to use such extreem language as referring to the “end of times” when it is all boiled down it is still all based upon those damnable computer models, and high degree of uncertainty at every stage.
God help us all
NT: ” The science was already done by someone else. Understand now?”
With the reports cherry picked for political expedience.
Do you understand now.
“With the reports cherry picked for political expedience.”
Just come up with the evidence.
Spot on, Malcolm. If an oil tanker came to grief in Australian territorial ocean then we can be absolutely clear that the “oceanically challenged” Swiss, Austrian, Belgian, Dutch, Luxemburgoise, German, Pole, Slovak, Hungarian and Swedish governments would not be dipping their hands into their own pockets to help clean up the mess or monitor the recovery. If it is in our ocean then it will be us, alone, who must pay for mitigating any pollution that might impact on it.
We must fund a navy to maintain and monitor our oceans. The Swiss have no such expense.
Yet, somehow, the Europeans have managed to internationalise their carbon “pollution” so that every other nation is expected to contribute to solving what is essentially a Euro/North American problem.
Factor in the carbon absorbed by our territorial oceans, and our other natural resources and Australia does not have an emission problem at all.
Allocate the Chinese emissions on the basis of the residence of the consumers of their goods and services and they don’t have much of a problem either.
Make every migrant from a Kyoto ratified nation bring their per capita emission quota with them when they settle in Australia and national targets might have a scrap of validity.
Guano’s negligence borders on treason.
“With the reports cherry picked for political expedience.”
There have just as many claims coming out that the political inteference has downplayed the extent of the problem, with countries such as the USA interfering to make the problem appear to be not as serious as it really is.
SJT “Just come up with the evidence.”
The Bias is evident in the reports used by the IPCC itself you should read their reports sometime then do a network analysis on who put it all together.
Now can you provide the evidence the problem is as serious as you *think* it is can you even provide solid evidence of a link to putative casues?
You might start with producing evidence of CO2 fingerprint on temperature record as opposed to a fingerprint of the temperature record on CO2 levels that we know exists.
Jan, your argument is circular… Conspiracy theories are so funny!
It belongs on this diagram:
http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/conspiracy-20080927.gif
If you look carefully you can even see your mate Hissink.
Got a theory on who killed JFK too?
You know, I am disappointed with the posters here. All you guys do is whinge and moan “ohhhh where is the evidence…. Ohhhh it’ll ruin the economy… Ohhhhh it’s socialism…” Come on guys! Get off your butts and do something about it! Stop with the nancy boy whining
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24434725-2862,00.html
“RECORD high temperatures across Victoria’s north last weekend laid waste to the state’s wheat crops, farmers say.
Temperatures as high as 34 celsius at Swan Hill, in the state’s north, and strong winds destroyed cropping areas across the Mallee, Wimmera and north-east, ending hopes that farmers could recover from the drought this year.
The Victorian Farmers Federation said northern irrigation districts remained on historically low September water allocations of between zero and six per cent.
VFF president Simon Ramsay said the state government must reinstate essential drought support measures to help struggling farm businesses and rural communities.
“The long hoped for recovery has not arrived and farmers are looking for direction on the support that will enable them to plan for the survival of their farms and businesses over the difficult summer ahead,” he said.
“A combination of high temperatures and close to no rainfall has meant that hundreds of farmers have now reached the point of no return.”
This is not a cherry, pick, this is the result of a prolonged, severe, drought. No flooding rains, but record high temperatures for this time of the year. Melbourne has just had it’s driest September on record.
SJT: “This is not a cherry, pick, this is the result of a prolonged, severe, drought. No flooding rains, but record high temperatures for this time of the year. Melbourne has just had it’s driest September on record.”
While Sydney has had some it’s wettest for a while.
It’s a picked cherry.
“While Sydney has had some it’s wettest for a while.
It’s a picked cherry.”
Sydney has had it’s usual variations between dry and wet. What is unusual is the fact that the drought is still going down South. The lowest month of rainfall on record is something to ponder. The lowest month of rainfall on record after a prolonged drought is not cherry picking. It’s part of a change in climate.
Similarly the southwest of WA is also continuing it’s trend for lower rainfall. With the north getting more rainfall… If only we lived in the north.
SJT” “Sydney has had it’s usual variations between dry and wet. What is unusual is the fact that the drought is still going down South.Sydney has had it’s usual variations between dry and wet. What is unusual is the fact that the drought is still going down South.”
Precisely you are picking one local effect over another local effect :- that’s cherry picking.
NT: “You know, I am disappointed with the posters here.”
Tough you don’t like it don’t read it.
No circular argument, no conspiracy theory it’s just I don’t expect a great variation in world view among the adherents of a particular religion. Likewise I don’t expect it from scientists who never move out of their politician dominated circles. They are blinkered.
“No circular argument, no conspiracy theory it’s just I don’t expect a great variation in world view among the adherents of a particular religion. Likewise I don’t expect it from scientists who never move out of their politician dominated circles. They are blinkered.”
Good grief.
“Precisely you are picking one local effect over another local effect :- that’s cherry picking.”
What I am saying is what the scientists had predicted, drier conditions for the Southern regions of Australia. Their models seem to be spot on. Prolonged drought with current indications from extreme records indicating that the trends is not going to be changing for the better. The South of Australia is a pretty big cherry.
It is circular Jan.
“With the reports cherry picked for political expedience.”
That’s a circular argument.
Garnaut has proposed giving 2.7 billion dollars of tax payers money to research Green technology….!
This is nothing but the funding of Socialistism and environmentalist activist groups along with their pet scientists.
With that much money at their disposal and the incestuous relationship of bad science validating bad policy, it will be hard stopping them….
There is going to be nothing good come out of any of this.
Sorry for the typo… Socialism….
As for bad science. Mann’s Hockey stick graph would be an example of that. That and the subsequent graphs purporting to validate Mann’s Hockey stick but using the same bad methodology.
Steve Mc Intyres site “Climate Audit” puts that case very succinctly and comprehensively.
J.H.
As does Jeff Id’s on the same topic. Ijust received the latest New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, and the recent International Geological Conference featured in the editorial. Seems geology has as many problems as climate science and it can be tracked down to the current parlous state of our universities scientific institutions where group think and pressure to published has more or less destroyed good science.
Not good.
“With that much money at their disposal and the incestuous relationship of bad science validating bad policy, it will be hard stopping them….
There is going to be nothing good come out of any of this.”
Well said Mr J Hansford.. because –adjustments must be made, even if it meant rubbing out places like the CSIRO and starting again, and putting the broom through the BOM.
The way science is funded in this country needs an major audit/review.
The way our so called representatives to the IPCC have behaved, should also be the subject of a enquiry.
You guys are all talk. You just talk and talk, when are you going to do something about it? Come on, get out there and close BoM, CSIRO and the UN!
“This is nothing but the funding of Socialistism and environmentalist activist groups along with their pet scientists.”
I’d say the majority of it will be going to large corporations. I don’t know where you get the idea it will be going to ‘green’ groups. They might be politically active, but they don’t produce much in the way of green technology.
Here is the rainfall series for southern australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rranom®ion=saus&season=0112
It shows a downward trend since 2000, similar to the downward trend in the 1910’s, 1920’s 1930’s and 1940’s. We are probably going back to that type of weather after a period of moister conditions.
Just normal natural climate variability.
Are there any deniers in the room?
http://www.nocarbontaxes.org
I see the skeptics are still going strong. I prefer to read the Real Climate blogs, they are much more informative.
Personally I don’t think we can be too sure yet what the changes will mean for our rainfall. There are certainly plenty of projections that support lower rain in the south. You could intuitively see this just by moving the desert band pole-wards.
I hope the increase in cyclonic activity might off-set this, but it is not ertain yet what impact there will be on our cyclones. the west looks to be getting more stronger cyclones, but the east has had a long period of less acitvity, so I think we will have to see what comes.
On the subject of “is there AGW?” I am certainly convinced and more and more people are coming to the same conclusion. So you better look at the research with a fresh approach. Take this seriiously, because if it is anything like it looks currently, we are in for a hell of a ride.
rikki,
“I prefer to read the Real Climate blogs”
with your attitude you would!
makes you feel nice, warm and cosy, with all of you in furious agreement.
Ricki, welcome to loony-ville. Don’t worry about Graeme his bark is worse than… well nothing really… Just your typical conspiracy theory hacks round here.
Graeme, so what is AR4? Is that not a summary of some science?
“Physicists are quite aware that the tale of Schroedinger’s cat was an attempt at a reduction ad absurdum. Trouble is quantum mechanics really is like that. We can’t determine both the momentum and the position of a particle with arbitrary accuracy. Schroedinger, among others (mostly the German Crowd), was bothered by the Copenhagen Interpretation which among others items stated that matter has a dual particle/wave nature that can both be observed but not a the same time. The Copenhagen Interpretation was what prompted Einstein’s retort “The ancient one does not play dice”.
Thats all good and fine Jan. But when you get that sort of gear that means you cannot stay settled on the same paradigm.
Its a message that you cannot lock this gear in. You have to keep circling back to first premises and lifting up competing ideas wherever they may be found.
“Graeme, so what is AR4? Is that not a summary of some science?”
its in no way a summary of THE science.
All my above statements are therefore accurate.
They don’t summarise the science.
They don’t summarise THE science.
But you are onto them. They deliberately and tendentiously manipulate SOME (your choice of words) “science”.
But what they have never done is summarise the science.
And the science is very clear and the science is saying we are heading for cooling. Which could turn out wrong, though I doubt it. But whether it turns out right or wrong this is STILL what the science says and thats just a fact.
The evidence says we are headed for cooling and it doesn’t say anything other.
This is not anything the UN summarised and the UN doesn’t summarise any science and is not up to task if they ever took the fancy for it.
“Just normal natural climate variability. ”
You forgot the temperature rise and drop in runoff. They didn’t have that before. Climate change.
NT = Luke. Yet more deception from the same old gonzo.
Greame: “Its a message that you cannot lock this gear in.”
That is sometimes the case in the real [quantised] world just learn to live with it.
“You forgot the temperature rise and drop in runoff. They didn’t have that before. Climate change.”
Define “climate change”.
The temps are here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/amtemp.shtml
and they show what statisticians call a random walk in temperatures.
We can say that it is generally warmer, and rainfall in Australia is higher than the 100 year historical record, but what does that prove?
When has Earth’s climate not varied?
The modest variation shown is barely perceptable by most people.
If you are going to argue human influence, sorry there is absolutely no evidence for this.
http://www.nocarbontaxes.org
“That is sometimes the case in the real [quantised] world just learn to live with it.”
Thats more a statement of ideology than anything else. The curse of the lone paradigm can get to everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“You forgot the temperature rise and drop in runoff. They didn’t have that before. Climate change.”
Who was that lying filth? Oh I see. Its SJT. Well yes I guess not much happened before climate change. When was that SJT? Four billion years ago?
Idiot.
“Who was that lying filth? Oh I see. Its SJT.”
LOL
“and they show what statisticians call a random walk in temperatures. ”
You must be looking at a different graph to me.
NT = Luke?
And he reckons he is a sort of earth science type, and knows nothing about economics.
He also knows nothing about earth science as well.
It’s hilarious that you think Luke and I are the same!
Well I won’t deny it. Yes we are. I am Luke and Luke is me. I only tried to decieve you because I am a fraud (as pointed out by Graeme).
Louis I have a BSc (Hons) in Geology.
It’s also how I know that Plate Tectonics is very real, despite your assertions to the contrary. It always puzzled me why youu would claim it isn’t real when there is so much evidence.
Come on then, test ,y Earth Sciences knowledge.
If I was a rock, I’d be a Leucogabbro.
“Louis I have a BSc (Hons) in Geology.”
Oh no, this will end in tears.
NT or Luke, or whoever you are,
Deny or confirm it as much as you want – nothing you write here can be taken at face value anymore. You have cried wolf so many times that for any one here to assume that, on this instant, you are telling the truth, is abit more than a stretch.
“Also scientists have a natural psychological disposition to go along with the crowd – to maintain ‘prescribed’ standards of behaviour which they personally may not believe in, for the simple reason that deviations from implanted rules and views may be harmful to one’s career. Also, the brainwashing effect of plate tectonics education has led many students and researchers to pick up a grossly over-simplified and uncritical view of global geology. The pressure of conforming to present views is strong, so in the act of communication with others many scientists will find it necessary to conceal from themselves discreditable facts they have come to realize; there may be things they know, or have known, that they will not be able to admit to themselves – simply because their inner feelings require them to perform in a socially ‘acceptable’ way. This intricate manoeuvre of self-delusion is what sociologist Erving Goffman calls “self-distantiation”.
And the pressure to conform to AGW dogma is just as strong – comes with territory when one is a lefty, I suppose.
Social Darwinism – conform and stay alive, or start thinking independently and discover that the real purpose in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane, and at the same run the risk of becoming extinct.
Graeme: “Thats more a statement of ideology than anything else.”
I disagree being able to take the world as it comes is more of an issue of reality testing.
Many of my clients in mental health rehab have problems with it – serious problems.
I deny it! I am NOT Luke!
Are you really Louis? I mean, you could be pretending… Maybe you and Graeme Bird are the same person…
It’s interesting that you can’t seem to cope with pseudonyms. Anonymity is one of the best parts of the internet and blogs. It lets people be judged solely by what they write rather than some other bias. So it’s very interesting that you write this: “nothing you write here can be taken at face value anymore.”
Why would I care Louis?
Your off hand dismissal of plate tectonics is laughable. It’s a very successful theory. Explains everything from the location of volcanoes, to earthquakes, to the magnetic reversals apparent on the Ocean floor, the difference between Oceanic and continental crust, the distribution of mineral deposits, the fact that there are mineral deposits, the location of mountain ranges, why there are mountain ranges, why there are oceanic trenches, the distribution of animal life, paleoclimates.
It’s a pretty succesful theory. In fact paleocontinental reconstruction is very useful in determining what greenfields areas will be prospective.
The reason that people who claim that plate tectonics is not real are not taken seriously is that they fail to present a better argument. You don’t present a better theory than plate tectonics, all you can do is waffle about some psychological condition. What is your better theory than Plate Tectonics?
It would seem Louis that not conforming is your modus operandi. Why on Earth do you equate “not conforming” with “thinking independently” – can you not think independently and come to the same view as someone else?
NT
People who hide behind pseudonyms tend to libel people with impugnity.
Meanwhile back at the ranch……………….the great stitch up continues………
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/02/sneaky-current-credit-bailout-bill-contains-carbon-tax-provisions/
NT: “You don’t present a better theory than plate tectonics, all you can do is waffle about some psychological condition.”
I haven’t been debating plate tectonics but you might between your split personalities. No one really knows.
People been libelling you Louis?
You use Plate Tectonics as an example of ‘group think’ or conformist thinking…
“Who was that lying filth? Oh I see. Its SJT.”
“People who hide behind pseudonyms tend to libel people with impugnity.”
🙂
Phil Done, Nt, Luke, …..et al,
Quite correct – but I am not alone having this view, as any cursory examination of the various papers published on the NCGT site would show.
I recall PT being introduced – it was first and foremost a geophysical concept in the absence of any geological input – some of us told the geophysicists that their “subduction” zones were implausible, for a variety of structural reasons. Made no effect – geophysicists consider themselves as superior scientists as a result of the physics major and continued in their way.
Another geophysical stuff up was the interpretation of the lithosphere that was the object of the USSR Kola Deep hole.
Geophysicists indentified a seismic high velocity layer which they interpreted as basalt. Drilling showed it to be metamorphic rock saturated with water.
They got the thermal gradient wrong too.
Once you have to work with geophysicists you take anything they say with a grain of salt – and that is from field experience of testing their hypotheses by drilling.
Wow, I libelled you?
INteresting.
Anyway, if you worried about being Libelled why are you posting here under your real name? Heck you call yourself whatever you like. If you are getting libelled it’s your own dumb fault.
Louis, PT has moved way beyond geophysics now, I think you need to do some more research.
There is hard geological evidence now, from obducted crust in Oman, NZ, or Canada. To studies on the creation of serpentinite in subduction zones, to photographic evidence from mid ocean ridges. Have you been keeping up-to-date with your reading?
WJP
The devil in the detail – we are fighting a losing battle but it still has to be passed by the House, doesn’t it?
NT,
I don’t read fiction.
Louis, you won’t even read it?
Jeepers…
So the pictures of mid-ocean ridges are faked?
NT,
That’s a pretty good non seqitur.
But you refuse to read any literature on PT because it’s “fiction”… What else am I to presume?
NT,
“The reason that people who claim that plate tectonics is not real are not taken seriously is that they fail to present a better argument.”
This argument, I suppose applies to all theories, and is patently wrong.
Just because I do not have an other-better theory does not make yours, automatically correct.
(You indeed must be young, mature people learned to avoid mentioning “(Hons)” as a supportive argument)
Johnathon,
No I don’t think that it applies to other theories, you tool me out of conext. We were discussing Plate Tectonics.
Do you know anything about Plate Tectonics?
“Just because I do not have an other-better theory does not make yours, automatically correct.”
I never said that. It’s a strawman.
Yes, I am 6 years old.
NT,
You seem unable to separate out the physical observations, mid-oceanic ridges, from the interpretation and theories.
Observation: lava outpouring from mid-oceanic ridges.
Interpretation: magnetic patterns parallel to the ridges.
Unsubstantiated assumption: Earth has constant diameter.
If spreading is occurring, and earth diameter constant, then crust must be going back into mantle.
Problem: total length of spreading ridges << than length of subduction linears.
Solution?: Ad hoc adjustments of existing theory by making it more complex and creating exceptions and other local fixes.
Proper scientific method: Theory worng – start again.
Earth expansionists reckon earth expanding on same data.
So how the heck can you get two totally different conclusions from the same data set. PT is dominant, not because it’s more accurate than expanding earth theories, but because of consensus, that of the successful argument.
I questioned PT with Tim O’Driscoll in 1971 who sagely advsied me to hold my tongue because uttering scepticism will not be good for my career prospects.
Like most sceptics, I don’t need to be PC, because my job does not rely on it.
And how many times have you been told here that consensus/argument is not science?
Unfortunately most of geology is based on pure deductionism and, hate to admit, pseudoscience.
Your blind adherence to AGW as well as PT puts you firmly in the deductionist camp where skilled rhetoric wins the day. That is how Charles Lyell got his way in the 19th century. Pure rhetoric and dismissal of contradictory empirical fact.
AGW is no different.
Whoops supposed to be >> not <>>>>> subduction linears.
Louis, the changes in magnetic alignment parallel to the ridges isn’t an “Interpretation” it’s an Observation. The interpretation is that the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed many times and that the bands demonstrate the movement of crust away from the ridge.
Is it not fair to assume the diameter of the Earth is constant? We don’t see it vary greatly.
Why should the length of spreading ridges equal the length of subduction zones? The are zones of compression all over the Earth.
You are ignoring the huge amount of observed data in favour of Plate Tectonics.
the funny thing is that you claim to know that Plate Tectonics is wrong, yet you just admitted you won’t read anything on it because it’s “fiction”. How can you claim to be a scientist when you refuse to read about science? And you cannot claim to be a skeptic when you won’t even read about it.
Here’s an easy start. Go to Google Scholar, type “Plate Tectonics”, then read… You’ll soon find most of it is based on observations.
“I questioned PT with Tim O’Driscoll in 1971 who sagely advsied me to hold my tongue because uttering scepticism will not be good for my career prospects.
Like most sceptics, I don’t need to be PC, because my job does not rely on it.”
So your big theory on how it is un-PC is based on a conversation you had in 1971, and based on advice you even admit was “Sage”.
This gets funnier all the time!
I knew it was going to end in tears.
NT,
The earth’s diameter has not varied greatly? What over the last decade or so? Probably. Over geological time at the PT scale? Based on what measurements – its an assumption, not a measured fact.
Ignoring all the observed data in favour of plate tectonics – wrong – its interpretation of the data that is in favour.
The earth expanders can counter everyone of the PT arguments, and I am no earth expander supporter, by the way.
Another excellent non sequitur NT.
It get’s funnier allright, just look at Wil Robinson’s comment.
I never claimed you were an Earth expander.
Here’s a start Louis. This is an honest appraisal of Plate Tectonics. This is a good explanation of where it’s at:
http://
earth.geology.yale.edu/~dberco/papers/2003/EPSL-Frontiers-PlateGen.pdf
You’ll note it actually lists some unresolved issues. For some reason you think that if a theory is ‘accepted’ or there is consensus, that scientists won’t change when there is knew data. This is uncorrect.
There is heaps of observed data in favour of plate tectonics. Triple point junctions, volcanic arcs, earthquake zones, obducted oceanic crust, measurements of shortening and extension in the rift valley in africa and basin and range in the US, chemical composition of lavas (isotope analysis showing that the lava is contaminated), and carbon recycling for the biosphere depends on plate tectonics.
Do you admit that the magnetic bands on either side of the MOR’s are observations?
I am just concerned by the lack of serious thought here. You claim that Plate Tectonics is countered by the Earth Expanders, but you said you don’t read any of the science… How could you possibly know?
I don’t say the earth expanders are wrong, I say that plate tectonics is a far superior theory.
NT
Go read the editorial of the NCGT news letter I posted on my blog today.
Has it occurred to you that I might have read all the relevant literature, both PT and EE in my long career as a geologist and formed some conclusions? I started studying geology in 1960 at high school and haven’t stopped, but irrespective of the deluge of jargon, I reject PT and EE because there is no plausible physical mechanism inside the earth to power PT or EE.
It is as simple as that.
NT: “carbon recycling for the biosphere depends on plate tectonics”.
I missed that gem of a phrase – and just what carbon is being recycled into the subduction zones?
– so I might dredge up an interesting proposal, totally off thread – but if subduction is a fact then dropping nuclear waste, in cement matrix, into subduction zones would be a neat way of disposing it, wouldn’t it.
Mentioned it some time ago and all I got was stunned silence.
“carbon recycling for the biosphere depends on plate tectonics”
I may have introduced that little concept into proceedings some time ago with a reference to Craig O’Neill’s work on ocean mantle recycling. Serves me right for talking about things about which I am completely ignorant; but if I only talked about what I know, I ‘d sound like Will.
NT, when you are around luke never is. Very odd. What have you done with him?
“I disagree being able to take the world as it comes is more of an issue of reality testing.
Many of my clients in mental health rehab have problems with it – serious problems.”
Jan. You have JUST got to get over yourself mate.
That cats deal is a total reduction to absurdity.
So reality is on the other side of the argument.
Get used to it. And stop being a moron.
There are no exemptions to the requirements of human reason in science.
So their argument was defeated clearly. And you just don’t want to believe it. So in fact you have shown yourself to be a moron and a believer in faith based science.
You should be on the warmers side of this one.
You won’t be able to come up with an argument mate. You are being an idiot.
Defeat the reduction to absurdity that has been given to you.
All of a sudden you are an argument free zone. You have collapsed into being a wanker and a facsimile of these global warming jerks.
Your argument is defeated. You did not beat the reduction to absurdity.
Look we’ve just got to get beyond this anti-science that is infecting us everywhere.
I don’t know a great deal about what is likely Jan’s subject. But if their model means that a cat can be both vibrantly healthy and dead at the same time THATS A FAILED PARADIGM right there.
Get used to it. Now it might still be a good PREDICITIVE model. But if you run into a CONTRADICTION (not a “paradox” by any stretch of the imagination) like that then the model is wrong.
Now it might be wrong in just a few small respects. But its wrong nonetheless.
And yet Jan has fallen into the stupid-zone by taking this thing on faith, contradictions and all.
Partly you will always find personality cults going on with this sort of stupidity. You know these old guys. This Einstein he was oh so smart, good lord he was smart…….
And Niels Bohr. My goodness we are all so unworthy in his site….
And surely they were brilliant people but you cannot do science on this combination of faith and personality cultism.
I think Schrodinger’s cat is ‘simply’ an attempt to describe Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle with a striking image; obviously, the cat, being a real quasiclassical object will have its alternatives decohered because of its interaction, even in the box, with the rest of the universe; that its fate is dependent on radiactive decay is besides the point because the live and dead cat scenarios decohere; nothing is dependent on the observer opening the box; you might as well say that watching or not watching a football match on tv determines its outcome; but a cat sounds better than a quantum particle; actually this is why GCM’s will always be obsolete; in QED the electromagnetic force between 2 electrons comes about through the emission of a photon by one electron and its absorption by another; this violates the conservation of energy and momentum principles; the system, that is the transfer between the particles, can tolerate this for a finite period of time, which is the time between the emission and the reabsorption; since this happens at quantum periods it is subject to quantum uncertainty; this cannot be computed; since the mechanism of AGW is such an energy transfer, GCM’s cannot by definition comprehend it.
Sounds like this gear needs a lot of work doesn’t it.
“since this happens at quantum periods it is subject to quantum uncertainty; this cannot be computed…”
I’m just not seeing this traditional humility of the scientist in all this dogma. Thats all it is.
Note you try and justify the paradigm with reference to itself. Something I’ve been coming down on the warmers about.
Now you are saying about quantum periods of time right?
Dude you must realise that even the concept of time itself is a bit of a speculation and a somewhat derivative concept.
So you ought not be showing such unbridled support for this here paradigm.
Can you tell me that this cat deal is NOT a contradiction?
Supposing I said to the magistrate:
Yes your worship. That I killed Luke or that I didn’t Kill Luke is besides the point because in quantum-time the two states of Luke decohere…..
….. or some such other feeble stuff.
Its like that idea about the space between the galaxies being created rather than the galaxies moving away from eachother at greater than the speed of light:
“Yes your worship, I ran into the deceased and at first it might have appeared that we were running away from eachother but you see your worship, it was the space between us that was being created..”
Now we simply have to put the skeptical eye on some of this stuff and particularly we cannot let our admiration for some of the old guys stop us from doing this.
Graeme; the 2 states of luke are NT and SJT; they don’t decohere because incoherence is a classical state.
Louis, you told me you didn’t read any of the PT literature, why did you suddenly change your mind?
Yes, chucking garbage down subduction zones would be a ‘method’ of getting rid of it. Although it’s probably too expensive to transport it there. People already sump garbage in the ocean so it’s not such a contraversial idea.
Carbon compounds accumulate on the ocean floor (dead things eventually sink). Mostly it is the skeletons of foraminifera, and Cohenite says he’s spoken of it before too. If carbon wasn’t recycled to the biosphere through volcanic activity then the accumulated calcium carbonate would deprive the biosphere of CO2. This is potentially what happened in the Neoproterozoic, triggering a very widescale glaciation (the Snowball Earth hypothesis).
Louis, you should check up on isotope analysis of both island arc basaltic lava and back arc felsic and Andesitic lavas. Compare them to say Hawaiian lava. Hawaiian is a mid-plate example, sourced from solely from the mantle. The others all feature contamination, sourced from the nearby subdution zone.
Well Cohenite, I think you discovered my secret… I killed Luke and stole his pseudonym.
He may live in a different time zone – or maybe he works night shifts or something. Can you see no difference in our knowledge base, MO, or writing style?
Cohenite, your deductive powers are impressive…
My real name is… No, I’d have to kill you first… I cannot betray His Royal Carbonaceousness Al Gore.
Graeme, your attempt to ‘disprove’ Quantum Mechanics fascinates me. How do you explain the results of the two slit experiment? What about pairing of spin? And what about the Uncertainty Principle?
Do you have any explanation?
Cohenite, you’re also a bit late with this statement “GCM’s cannot by definition comprehend it.”
Godel already demonstrated this feature with his Incompleteness Theorem.
Chaos Theory also denies us exact knowledge.
Models have only ever been approximations to help us understand.
“Models have only ever been approximations to help us understand.”
Maybe that’s enough reason to fear them.
“Maybe that’s enough reason to fear them.”
Comment of the thread; complete flapdoodle.
NT; Godel is not really germane to GCM’s; this is illustrated by Goldbach’s conjecture, which is really a statement of infinity; science , like the law can, however operate at certain high confidence levels; 11 out of 12 jurors can convict, and a 95% confidence level and repeated verification or observation can base a hypthesis; but AGW has none of this; there is no sufficiently high confidence levels with any of the submitted evidence; no matter if you use PCA, cps or eiv; it just ain’t happening.
NT
You have confuse past with present.
I have not changed my mind.
Carbon compounds accumulate on the ocean floor – examples for plus physical evidence as confirmation please.
“Comment of the thread.”
I’d be honoured to accept the award, but I don’t think you can beat. ->>>
“Who was that lying filth? Oh I see. Its SJT. “
“Comment of the thread.”
I’d be honoured to accept the award, but I don’t think you can beat. ->>>
“Who was that lying filth? Oh I see. Its SJT.”
“Graeme, your attempt to ‘disprove’ Quantum Mechanics fascinates me. How do you explain the results of the two slit experiment? What about pairing of spin? And what about the Uncertainty Principle?
Do you have any explanation?”
The two-slit experiment is fine. But a thing cannot be a particle and a wave at the same time. You could have particles with some sort of wave effects. Or wave functions. But a thing is just what it is. Its not this than that at the same time. You can have waves made out of particles. Or particles moving in waves. Or you can have other things going on. But you have these big waves and then you have these supposed tiny particles. And they describe them as a duality. Yet the wavelength can be really big and the supposed particles can be fantastically tiny and so its a bit strange the way they project it both as light they are referring to. It strikes me as just strange terminology is all. Nothing particularly wrong with it. I got nothing much to say about it.
Now this pairing of spin. This pairing shows an interaction that is supposed to stay there over distances that suggest faster than light speed. So you just assume faster than light interaction. There is no reason not to assume it. Thats direct evidence for it. So you don’t have to assume voodoo if you just believe what the results are telling you. So I don’t know why these guys assume some sort of voodoo or why they would patch up any theory with voodoo rather than just saying they don’t know whats going on. If you see faster than light interaction you just say…. hey I’ve found evidence for faster than light interaction. You don’t build on earlier errors but instead keep circling back to question earlier assumptions.
The “Uncertainty Principle” is a principle of the paradigm you are talking about.
The shrodingers cat business would have to be a successful reduction to absurdity which would disprove this theory at least to some extent. So these theories have to be seen as provisional and good predictive models only. And if we don’t see it that way this is getting in the way of progress.
Supposing I have a theory. I have this theory that Popes are infallible. Suppose you come along and point out that this here Pope accidentally poisoned himself while he was trying to murder someone else.
Well if I started then talking in quantun mechanics-speak you’d be a little bit skeptical I would hope.
It looks like a theory that needs rethinking because it contains what appears to be a lot of patches to it. Voodoo and statistics patches.
Sometimes you have to make the assumption that these guys don’t know all the answers yet. And there is nothing wrong with that. But if they don’t know the answers, and assume that they do, that is a real problem, since it will get in the way of progress.
That Pope was still infallible by the way. He was infallible but this is subject to the uncertainty principle. Where its not that he’s infallibe some of the time. But its more a duality where he is infallible but the uncertainty principle overlays his infallibility in a duality not disimiliar to the trinity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit being distinct but yet the same.
So yes the Pope is infallible. And yet……
………
Well you know. You never get anywhere with that sort of talk.
Graeme: “Sounds like this gear needs a lot of work doesn’t it.”
Not at all mot of us have moved on from there. With the exception of gravity , the quantization of energy, the dual particle/wave nature of matter, Heisenbergs principle and Schroedinger’s wave equation are pretty well established in spite of his cat (like I said the attempt at reductio actually failed). It’s had some rather nice practical spin off like the transistor without which, a computer with the power of the one you are sitting in front of would probably take up half a continent.
Well thats a lot of exceptions. And you ought not have moved on. You ought to be circling back to first premises and seeing if there are any alternate paradigms that can compete.
Now you assert that the reduction to absurdity failed. But a cat cannot be both dead and alive. So it doesn’t look like it failed. And you just claimed that things were like that and that people just had to get used to it. You gave no reason to suggest that the reduction to absurdity failed.
So get to it now. Lets have it.
No I’m afraid that there is no part of science that can be given an exemption to human reason. We see that you must have some sort of hero-worship on the go to suggest that some folks are exempt from it.
The reduction to absurdity is there. You cannot find the failure. So you have to face up to it. You say that people have moved on. This is presumption and irrationality on their part.
This is the very same problem we are confronted with in the global warming racket. People just assert stuff and they lock it in and move on and will not discuss the evidence any more.
When these guys conduct these experiments most of the evidence is indirect. No-ones seen a quark for example. We have a very bad habit of locking things in and building on arbitrariness.
Lets see your overturning of the reduction to absurdity or admit that you are wrong.
How is it that a cat can be both vibrantly healthy and wondering about its next glass of milk….. and dead at the same time.
Go!!!!
Transisters were not developed via quantum physicists. Thats just bad history.
“On 17 November 1947 John Bardeen and Walter Brattain observed that when electrical contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, the output power was larger than the input. Shockley saw the potential in this and worked over the next few months greatly expanding the knowledge of semiconductors and is considered by many to be the ‘father’ of the transistor.”
It doesn’t look like a great deal of quantum voodoo was necessary in this development.
Graeme; may I suggest reading up on the EPRB experiment; QM doesn’t permit faster than light travel; QM is about probabilities; some things have very low probabilities; like luke, NT and young Will sharing the same brain; but no probability is 0; the uncertainty principle is one of observation; at quantum scale the observer is part of the action; there are some studies about the quantum thresh-hold but I don’t know whether they are being applied to AGW; perhaps they should; that way we could blame Hansen for causing storms by looking at them! Hence;
Hansen was clever and bright
He could travel much faster than light.
He set out one day, in a relative way,
And returned home the previous night.
Look cohenite. You cannot prove a paradigm by reference to itself. So you saying that QM does not permit faster than light travel is just irrelevant. I never thought anything different myself. I suspected these guys had inherited the arbitrary and wrong kibosh on faster than light-speed travel.
But entanglement is direct evidence for faster than light travel. Since there is absolutely no reason to believe in a light-speed limit, when you see this experimental evidence there is really only one sensible conclusion to take from it….
…. and that is that you’ve discovered faster than light movement leading to a faster than light interaction.
And the rhyme makes no sense. Since travelling faster than light doesn’t mean you get back before you left. It just means that if the distance travelled is four light years you get back in two years if you travel twice the speed of light.
You don’t want to be believing a lot of fairy stories here. The fact of gravity proves faster than light interaction every moment of the day. The orbits of distant objects simply would not hold together if far faster than light-speed interaction wasn’t happening all the time.
So here you have pointed out for me another flaw with Quantum Mechanics. Which is good because I don’t know a great deal about this flawed and incomplete set of paradigms. Beyond the fact that they are flawed and incomplete.
Graeme; the point about gravity is interesting but I’m not sure that gravity, or gravitons, travel faster than light, because if the impact of gravity is a product of the mass of the object on the relative structure of the universe, you would still require FSL activity along that structure for that to be true; that seems to be merely restating the QM issue. As to your example about the speed of light; what about if they travel at 8 times the speed of light? It doesn’t matter because as soon as you travel faster than light you break the second law of thermodynamics because you are out-running entropy; entropy is another reason why GCM’s don’t work; in a closed system there is always a movement towards disorder; AGW and the semi-infinite opaque model says that atmospheric LDR, as per Philipona, is increasing the energy at the surface with no extra external imput; if the LDR travelled faster than the speed of light that would be the case; failing that entropy increases and temperatures will not rise.
Graeme: “It doesn’t look like a great deal of quantum voodoo was necessary in this development.”
Technology development involved in improvement and greater compaction certainly does until you actually have done some work in solid state physics (you won’t get a look in there without quantum physics) I’d suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
“So here you have pointed out for me another flaw with Quantum Mechanics. Which is good because I don’t know a great deal about this flawed and incomplete set of paradigms. Beyond the fact that they are flawed and incomplete.”
Argument from ignorance.
“As to your example about the speed of light; what about if they travel at 8 times the speed of light? It doesn’t matter because as soon as you travel faster than light you break the second law of thermodynamics because you are out-running entropy; entropy”
I dispute that. But supposing its true. Supposing you were outrunning entropy, or that gravity travelled far faster than the speed of light which it obviously does.
Than if thats outrunning entropy as you allege that could be a reason why the universe isn’t already at some sort of maximal entropy.
Cohenite. I’m just not seeing an argument here. Like the warmers, you cannot justify a paradigm by referring back to that same paradigm.
Once again. If gravity didn’t travel many millions of times the speed of light then the orbits of the stars in our galaxy would simply unwind.
If gravity travelled only at the speed of light then our solar system would have unwound most considerably in our lifetime.
You didn’t find positive evidence for the light-speed limit. You just related it back to the same paradigm.
If you travel some distance at faster than the speed of light you are not breaking any fundamental and true laws. You are not getting there before you left.
Thats just crazy-talk.
Now Jan. I think it is you making a fool of yourself since you have not overcome the reduction to absurdity we were talking about. In fact it doesn’t look like you have tried even.
The shoe is on the other foot now. And some of you are committing the same sorts of sloppiness of thought that we see in the warmers.
There has to be a bit of hero-worship going on here.
Graeme: “In fact it doesn’t look like you have tried even.”
Oh i don’t know while I don’t think it’s particularly worth the effort it is set as an exercise in some second year physics courses. Then of course you have the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox which was a more serious attempt at a reductio. What they though to be absurd was actually shown to be fact in entangled photon experiments.
Another case of experiment confounding theory. Do you think it should be the other way around and say like the climate scientist “the model is right the real world is wrong”? That’s exactly what you are doing. It’s high time you got over yourself.
“Graeme; the point about gravity is interesting but I’m not sure that gravity, or gravitons, travel faster than light, because if the impact of gravity is a product of the mass of the object on the relative structure of the universe…”
This sounds like some sort of crazy-talk about space being compressed or stretched. But there is not a great deal of space between my foot and the floor and yet we have this force of gravity. Its a definite force. To say it is a compression of space is double-dipping in all cases where one is in contact with the surface of a massive body.
So this space compression gear ought to be rejected outright. And this two-step that the believers get into where one of them says its not space its “space-time” is also entirely inane.
“Then of course you have the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox which was a more serious attempt at a reductio.”
You haven’t been able to overcome the first reductio. And what does photon-entanglement prove exactly…. Once you get rid of this fantasy of there being a light-speed limit?
What does it prove?
Nothing much I would have thought.
“Technology development involved in improvement and greater compaction certainly does…..”
I find that all a bit hard to believe also. I mean surely this is a practical engineering matter more than anything else. And a trade and entrepreneurial matter.
You are saying in effect that Moore’s law likely wouldn’t be operational without these quantum mechanics guys.
That would be a hard case to make I would think.
Graeme: “Once you get rid of this fantasy of there being a light-speed limit?”
I think it’s more a case of your getting over that phantasy that there isn’t.
“Nothing much I would have thought.”
You think? You surprise me.
cohenite: ” but I’m not sure that gravity, or gravitons, travel faster than light”
This is still very much a work in progress some of it in CERN with LHC others with gravitational interferometry. Of course Graeme knows it all without doing the experimental work.
Then Athena Star Woman probably does too;-)
You got nothing Jan. You are making a dick of yourself. You may as well go to the warming camp.
As we have seen the verification for lightspeed being beaten constantly is all around us in our orbits that would unwind were gravity to propagate at only the speed of light. There is no dodging that one fella.
Wow, everyone is debating with each other! This is great!
Cohenite, I like the incompleteness theorem wrt to GCMs – I see it in the choice of model parameters.
“but AGW has none of this; there is no sufficiently high confidence levels with any of the submitted evidence; no matter if you use PCA, cps or eiv; it just ain’t happening.”
“but AGW has none of this; there is no sufficiently high confidence levels with any of the submitted evidence; no matter if you use PCA, cps or eiv; it just ain’t happening.”
You do realise that PCA was actually developed so you could attempt to quantify problems where you could do no experiment and only had natural data sources. And data which have no readily discernable relationship… PCA has been around a while. The reason Stevie Mac has a problem with it’s use in climate reconstructions is because parts of Mann et al.’s method didn’t seem to make sense to Stevie Mac (Ian Joliffe said he didn’t know if it was valid, not that it was invalid).
Graeme and Louis I think are revealing themselves… Wow.
Now what do you mean by that you dumbass?
Look the idea is to go with the evidence. To keep challenging your more fundamental assumptions.
What I’m saying is that the world of science got what it deserved in that it set up all sorts of ideas as being dogma and immune to challenge, as well as not needing evidence to back it up.
The light-speed limit is like this. It is broken and pathetic excuses are made for those occasions where we see it broken.
Now once the scientists had allowed this cult of personality and rigidity in their thinking to develop this allows outright frauds like the global warming racket to just ruin everything. They in fact have no evidence whatsoever. And unlike the earlier physicists they aren’t even smart guys.
I mean one can disagree with Einstein. But its hard to say he wasn’t a brilliant guy. But Hansen is an idiot. As are all those guys at realclimate.
So we don’t have these special priviledges where people can lock in dogma without the evidence. We have to take Occam’s razor to the whole thing. We don’t lock in things like singularities or theories like the big bang.
Once you allow that sort of rigidity to develop then science-fraud can reach to pandemic levels. Thats my point here.
These people who insist on space-time, light speed limits, and other dubious stuff on account of the acknowledged genius of the originaters are on weak grounds when a gang of real idiots hit town with the outright science fraud of global warming.
Graeme, sorry you feel that way. Personally I see no dogmatic adherence to paradigms in science.
And I meant no offence with my “reveling themselves” comment. Was just an observation of your honesty.
I think that if someone were to find a way of breaking the speed of light they would earn praise and prestige.
I think the rewards of breaking paradigms and creating a paradigm shift are too great.
As to whether Hansen is a great scientist, that’s just you opinion.
Do you see the second law of thermodynamics as being “dogma and immune to challenge”? Why is the second law of thermodynamics held in higher regard than the speed of light for you?
Where do we see the speed of light broken?
I am confused by your assertion that space-time isn’t curved, is this something you just made up?
Sure you can disagree with Einstein, but why should we care if you do?
Louis I missed your question re: carbon accumulation on the ocean floor
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/186_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/103.PDF
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2391541
http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/dpseabiogenic.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4489TMK-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d4e5f7e2fc6552507d76cabe936f6ee8
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ocean-Floor-Sediments.html
Lots of stuff. Do you know how to use Google Scholar?
Maybe for once, you could look for yourself before demanding I do your searching for you. It’s not like it’s hard to find…
Louis here’s some work on the Neoproterozoic ice ages:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5646/859
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118661128/abstract
http://geol.queensu.ca/people/narbonne/JamesNarbonneKyser.pdf
http://www.snowballearth.org/capcarbs.html
Lots of holiday reading for you!
“Where do we see the speed of light broken?”
We see it broken by the actions of gravity for starters. We used to see through the internet and even the wikipedia a great deal of examples of experimenters breaking the light-speed. Its almost a mundane thing to break light-speed these days. But this stuff tends to be ethnically cleansed from the internet and it can be very hard to find these instances of light-speed being broken. So I’ll just concentrate on the propagation of gravity whose light-speed breaking pace is manifest.
“I am confused by your assertion that space-time isn’t curved, is this something you just made up?”
There is no such entity as space-time. There is space sure. But no unicorn such as space-time. No-one has ever found any evidence for such a thing.
There is certainly such a thing as space. We see it every waking moment. But we only see three dimensions of it. Its just meaningless to say that its curved. Its not curved at all as far as anyone can see.
So there is such a thing as space and it isn’t curved. But there is no such thing as space-time. I doubt that there is any such thing as “time” as such. Its not a concept we can get rid of. But there is simultaneity, and there is regular movement. And its probably the case that the concept of time comes as a derivative concept from these other two.
Its really presumptuous to go on building on concepts that themselves are pretty arbitrary. In the case of time, well we need that concept. But knowing that its likely a derivative concept its just risky and silly to build on top of it.
Hence treating it as a sort of liquid or mixing it up with space and acting like the goo can stretch or be compressed. Well thats just all fantasy talk. And fantasy-talk for which there is no evidence.
Ok Graeme… So you don’t think there’s evidence for the curvature of space or the existence of space-time? Fair enough…
Did you look?
There isn’t anything called space-time. And its very silly to confuse things like this.
The derivation of the concept of space-time seems to come out of a cartesian graph. Like someones marked an x axis and a y axis and someone has started calling a thing an xy.
Its not what I think at all. There is simply no evidence for any seperate entity called space-time. There is space. We don’t disaggregate space from this monster of make-believe space-time. Its right out there on its own.
Don’t screw around. If you have some evidence for unicorn-aircraft-carriers, electro-magnetic penguins or such a hybrid entity as space-time do let me know.
You might start off with some evidence for time as a warmup.
Well Einstein coined the term and it is part of his General Theory of Relativity. Has naught to do with cartesian graphs, more to do with being a mathematical model of the Universe. You can rubbish it if you like, but that’s not particularly interesting.
Time is difficult to understand or ‘see’. In fact Godel took Einstein’s work further and demonstrated that time wasn’t actually required for the universe to exist. So yes, perhaps there is no such thing as time.
NT; I’m not good with vector/scalar dichotomy and I’m certainly no expert on PCA; but one thing is sure, PCA, of any type,, should not be used with non-stationary data because such data exhibits both vector and scalar qualities; this was Jolliffe’s complaint with Mann1; Mann2 has compounded this inappropriateness; Mann2 has cherry-picked data, some of which was used for Mann1, and worse, uses calculations/calibrations of data as his proxies; he cherry-picks the statistical method, cps or eiv, which gives the best result, and he cherry-picks his criteria for HS; 3 strikes and you’re out; but wait, there’s more; he cherry-picks the HadCrut data to correlate with; he does this in 2 ways; firstly by infilling with RegEm for some HadCrut values; and secondly, he selects an instrument value from any where in the world if it fits a proxy which has survived the above process. Apart from this spurious correlation with non-local grid cells, it isn’t apparent that Mann2 adjusts for autocorrelation or LTP; given the artificiality of the ‘selection’ process at all stages one would have to say that Mann2 results are fabrications.
Thanks cohenite.
http://www.springer.com/statistics/statistical+theory+and+methods/book/978-0-387-95442-4
Look at only $115 it’s a bargain… Then you can truly dismiss Mann’s work!
Graeme; the best evidence for time existing is that there is evidence of the past and no evidence of the future; which is another reason why GCM’s do not work.
“Graeme and Louis I think are revealing themselves… Wow.”
You haven’t been around here long, have you?
SJT… We are the same person… You know how long I/We have been here… Shhhh…
Golly I’m not even on the bloody thread and I”m being libelled. Perhaps Hissink is Mott is Bird – evidence – they’re all dingbats – so must be true. QED.
OK Birdy – given this appalling result http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/dobe.htm – how can we take you seriously. What’s your excuse. No don’t bother. I’m sick of your lame excuses.
And why would anyone live in an electorate like Dobell anyway – a backwater for bypassed wannabes. Do you live in Tuggerah (aptly named?). Dobell is the last place you’d detect climate change anyway – What’s there to do except watch the traffic toodle up and down the F3 while being ventilated by pleasant breezes… move to Kennedy and we’ll give you some respect.
“Well Einstein coined the term and it is part of his General Theory of Relativity.”
I don’t think he did coin the term and I think he was uncomfortable with the idea at first, when people were using it based on his earlier work.
But it doesn’t really matter since there is no such thing as space-time.
All we have the evidence for is space. And I think that there is simply no need to dismiss time as a concept. And I don’t think we have the ability to do so and maintain a coherent language. But I’m glad that you pointed out what Godel said. Because I did not know that and it sounds like Godel was more in line with what I’m thinking.
I’m not thinking that we can or should dismiss time as a concept. Only that we ought to recognize it as probably a derivative concept and so be careful about building on it.
You build on these things one layer and you might often get away with it. You might get away with it and wind up with a model with extraordinary predictive ability.
But it seems that if you keep building and don’t tend to your Occams razor you wind up with a lot of gibber.
And I think we see this gibber when we get to the detail of the big bang theory. And I think we see this gibber in global warming theory also where we see this linear building on arbitrary and dubious premises.
I don’t think we see quite this level of gibber in QM but we do see some warning signs. Its understandeable that the small stuff ought to behave counter-intuitively but one worries about these guys locking in real voodoo and dogma just because it was the only way to put together a semi-coherent functioning predictive model that explains the experimental data.
I just think the whole lot is due for a rethink.
This looks like it may be Einstein’s work… Not sure. Have read and see what he thinks of space-time
http://publicliterature.org/pdf/relat10.pdf
Look I know what you are saying. You are saying he used the concept of space-time. Note how I worded it above. I said that I thought that I had heard that he was uncomfortable AT FIRST with the people using that term based on his earlier work.
You ought to have noted the precision of what I was saying. I was aware that he took up the usage of it at some stage.
What is your stance on Maxwell’s equations Graeme?
“since the mechanism of AGW is such an energy transfer, GCM’s cannot by definition comprehend it.”
models don’t comprehend, they approximate.
The link I posted claims to be his General Relativity.
Anyway… Doesn’t matter.
I actually agree with you on the potential non-existence of time as dimension or necessity. Though this doesn’t negate our personal and cultural experience of it.
NT
I just paid $900 for a second hand copy of the text “The Physics of the Plasma Universe”.
For those confused with the acronym PCA – we used to call it Factor Analysis.
NT,
Curvature of space? That is a mathematical abstraction – physically it has no basis in reality.
Curvature in a gravity field then?
Better make sure you are wearing your water wings.
Graeme” ” But this stuff tends to be ethnically cleansed from the internet and it can be very hard to find these instances of light-speed being broken.”
Nice little conspiracy theory you have going there.
Be well.
“Nice little conspiracy theory you have going there.”
You get used to it after a while. Or you just ignore it. Many people do.
Here’s another report from another university of lightspeed being broken. The same old story. Instead of it being treated as routine its treated as a first and then hosed down on some basis.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3630
But these matters ought to be taken seriously since there was never any reason to believe in a light-speed prohibition in the first place.
The theory of relativity is nothing of the sort. Its actually a theory of velocity-absolutism.
Once you get over the fantasy that there is a light-speed limit than you notice that its being broken all the time.
That last link was from 2002. But here’s another one from 2007. But its the same old story. Its like they always pretend its the first time they’ve heard of it. When evidence has come in for decades and its all pretty old hat.
In 2020 no doubt they’ll be still breaking light-speed in the lab and still getting the same reaction.
So no its rubbish to think that you will be promoted as some genius if you break lightspeed because people do it all the time and its no big deal.
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/August/20/88725.aspx
SJT: “You get used to it after a while.”
I’m sure I will if i continue to be bothered with it.
His remarks on the physics world article does give some insight into his faulty thinking on the issue. He seems to make the mistake that many beginning students of physics make and that is to assume the theory of relativity states that the speed of light is invariant ithroughout all media. It isn’t. If it was prisms, telescopes etc. would not work at all.
Right so another excuse. There was supposed to be a light speed limit.
Where is the evidence for it? Its been broken and that ought to be the end of the matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This goes back many decades. Whenever information comes in that light-speed has been beaten its simply wished away through bigotry and stupidity.
Here is an example of the anal-retentive curse of the lone paradigm at work:
“In astronomy, superluminal motion is the apparently faster-than-light motion seen in some radio galaxies, quasars and recently also in some galactic sources called microquasars. All of these sources are thought to contain a black hole, responsible for the ejection of mass at high velocities.”
Now either thats YET MORE EVIDENCE in a mountainload of it, against none in favour, that the light-speed limit is not there…
… Or its evidence that the these objects are much closer than modern astronomy would imagine. But you see both these conclusions are heresies maintained by idiots.
So they have to find a way around the evidence that maintains both aspects of the dumb priesthood intact. Notice that this sort of stupidity goes back at least as far as the 70’s.
“When first observed in the early 1970s, superluminal motion was taken to be a piece of evidence against quasars having cosmological distances. Although a few astrophysicists still argue for this view, most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity.”
The objects weren’t closer. The lightspeed wasn’t beaten. You see it was all an optical illusion.
This is pretty much always the approach. And yet they have no evidence for a light-speed limit in the first place. And never did.
“He seems to make the mistake that many beginning students of physics make and that is to assume the theory of relativity states that the speed of light is invariant ithroughout all media.”
No I never made any sort of mistake like this. You are just being an idiot fella.
Graeme: “No I never made any sort of mistake like this.”
Yes you do. Try doing at least a 100 level physics course before you go around insulting people who work or have worked in the field.
No you are lying. I didn’t make a mistake of that nature. It was a moronic comment by you. Since the link was about light moving FASTER than the falsely alleged maximum universal velocity and not slower.
So your argument was moronic. And you are just an idiot.
Now where is your argument for a universal maximum velocity.
You are not real smart are you Jan.
You are just an idiot fella.
So you are an argument-free-zone than Jan!!! Let us have that evidence for this here light-speed limit. Broken routinely in the lab. Broken in big bang theory, in the supposed calculations of mainstream astrologers calculating the expansion of the universe…
Where was the evidence for this limit in the first place. Dummy.
Graene and Jan,
stop arguing and read Stephen J. Crother’s analysis just posted http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest.htm.
You may want to refute Crothers’ argument? Have fun.
Tell youi what Louis when Crtohers builds his first faster than light ship I’ll sit up and listen to him. Until then I don’t think I’ll bother.
You are just being an idiot Jan. There is no reason to assume a universal speed limit in the first place.
Jan,
is this because of the association with the thunderbolts site, or because of cognitive dissonance.
Graeme I think the universal speed limit came about as a result of Einsteins work and is not some arbitrary assumption. I think Einstein’s maths meant that to accelerate something to greater than the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. Einstein never assumed it was a ‘speed limit’ I believe he even commented on the possible existence of “tachyons” that may exclusively travel faster than the speed of light (but not slower).
After three decades of continual increase, the mean Earth temperature has been decreasing steadily since 2002, as precise satellite measurements show. World climate is a regular quasi-periodic phenomenon (driven by solar activity with a period of 70 – 80 years) that lags the mean Earth rotational velocity by 6 years. Because of this regularity, it can be stated with absolute certainty that the mean Earth temperature will continue to decrease until 2040.
The following description of a new, super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation explains why this is so [see Section e)].
Extending Physics to the Sub-Fermionic/Bosonic Particle Level Yields a New and Powerful Theory of Gravitation.
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Program Manager “CCV, F 104G” (see Internet).
Program Manager “Lampyridae, MRMF” (see Internet)
Abstract: Extending physics to the subphotonic particle level yields a new theory of gravitation that not only covers the well-known Einstein effects but also points out a number of post-Einstein-effects that show up in recent geo- and astrophysical observations. The new theory is based on quantum mechanics and is free of the problem of the intolerably high vacuum energy density that plagues General Relativity.
The currently favoured gravitational theory, the General Theory of Relativity (GR) of Einstein, is pre-quantum-mechanics, purely geometric, and deviates from reality by at least 41 orders of magnitude (see Weinberg, S.: Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 61, 1989, p. 1). Definite proof of the fallacy of GR is provided by the Casimir experiment in which a vacuum energy density of 0.03 J/m³ has been measured. With this energy density, which is more than 8 orders of magnitude higher than the mean density of the rest energy of the visible matter content of the universe, GR gives a universe age that is three orders of magnitude smaller than the age of the Earth! The measured vacuum energy density is higher than the maximum value of approx. 4 eV/mm³ allowed by GR (see Overduin and Priester, Naturwissenschaften 2001, p. 229) by a factor of 50 000 000! The PSR 1913+16 binary system is unsuitable for validating Einsteinian gravitational waves since a mere acceleration of this sytem of 0.01 mm/sec² completely contaminates the time sequence of the pulse train received from that system.
As a logical consequence, GR must be discarded and replaced by a theory of gravitation that is in line with modern particle interaction theory and is in good agreement with experiment. The author has developed such a new theory. This theory, which is based on quantum mechanics and on two plausible post-university-teaching assumptions, not only covers the well-known Einstein effects but also points out a number of post-Einstein-effects that show up in recent geo- and astrophysical observations. The new theory is based on quantum mechanics and is free of the problem of the intolerably high vacuum energy density that plagues General Relativity.
The first assumption is founded on the fact that in the documented particle accelerator experiments, all particles have displayed a dynamic behaviour identical to that of equal-energy electromagnetic radiation enclosed in a vessel with perfectly reflecting walls. Hence, not only photons but all elementary particles must – with high probability – be of an electromagnetic nature. They can be represented by non-radiating oscillating multipole fields carrying energy and angular momentum suitably combined with electrostatic fields. This paradigm reduces Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity to an afternoon exercise for any physics student, and makes that exotic theory understandable for everybody.
Every force field requires a carrier, either in the form of a substrate or a mediating particle. Generations of electrodynamicists have disregarded this simple wisdom. It is here assumed (second assumption) that electromagnetic fields are carried by a dense sea of polarisable and magnetisable subphotonic particles of extremely low mass called “seaons”. (Because of Einstein’s abstract way of deriving Special Relativity, many physicists think that physical theory does not allow the existence of a carrier medium and a preferred frame of reference. This is, of course, not true. The microwave background radiation shows that a preferred reference frame does exist, and, as every electrodynamicist knows, in an electromagnetic world there is no fundamental difference between an ideal dielectric medium with its distinct frame of reference and the vacuum.) This seaon sea fills the complete universe and is presently expanding from its initial state of infinite particle density at the time of the big bang. The gaskinetic particle motion within the Sun on the one hand, and the dynamics of galaxy clusters and superclusters on the other, yield a seaon mass of some 10**(-33) neutron masses.
The quantum-mechanical interaction of the seaons with the electromagnetic field of a material particle of mass m1 results in a spherically symmetric increase of the local seaon particle number density and, as a consequence, in a spherically symmetric reduction of the local speed of light of the form c(r) / cinfinity = 1 – G m1 / (c²r). (Here c is the distance travelled by light in one unit of local time). Because of the gradient in c, a second material particle of mass m2 and electromagnetic energy m2c² placed in the c-field of the first particle experiences the well-known electromagnetic gradient force F = (m2c²) grad c / c = G m1 m2 / r².
The new gravitational theory is called Seaon Theory (ST). Because it is based on quantum mechanics and not on geometry, ST displays a number of post-Einstein-effects that are not covered by GR. These post-Einstein-effects are:
a) The slow secular changes of almost all physical quantities
As a result of the steady decrease of the particle number density in the expanding seaon sea, the vacuum electromagnetic properties, the speed of light, the gravitational “constant” and other physical quantities change slowly with time. This post-Einstein-effect explains the slow (secular) increase of the orbital radii of all planets, the warm paleo-climates of Earth and Mars, the slow decrease of the pressure within the celestial bodies, the slow increase of the radius of the Earth, the slow decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth, the slow decrease of the ratio of continental to oceanic crust area and the secular fall of the sea level of the oceans, and also explains why the oldest stars seem to be much older than the universe.
b) The extremely small but finite dependence of the gravitational force on the relative velocity of two gravitationally interacting bodies. This quantum mechanical post-Einstein-effect explains the large deficit of solar neutrinos, the heating of the coronal and the intergalactic gas to millions and hundreds of millions of degrees, respectively, as well as the heat surplus of Jupiter and Saturn. This interaction energy is extracted from the almost unlimited enrgy reservoir of the seaon sea that constitutes the vacuum.
c) The transition of the gravitational force from the inverse square law to a 1/r variation at galactic and supergalactic distances. This post-Einstein-effect that results from the quantum mechanical interaction in an expanding substrate with a time-varying source strength, considerably alleviates the dark matter problem.
d) The gravitational deactivation of matter in superdense, supermassive bodies as a result of the conversion of electromagnetic rest energy into electromagnetic kinetic energy during the free fall of a particle.
According to the new theory, a particle in free fall towards a body gains kinetic energy at the expense of its rest energy mc². (In a purely electromagnetic world, the energy form “gravitational energy” has no real existence.) As the particle falls, its rest mass and, as a consequence, its gravitational source strength are decreasing steadily. When a supermassive gas cloud of mass M collapses to a spinning superdense body of radius R most of its original gravitational source strength is lost. (The relative gravitational deactivation is given by GM/c²R, approximately.) Hence, the supermassive bodies located at the center of every galaxy contain several orders of magnitude more matter than is indicated by their gravitational field. Because of their high degree of gravitational deactivation, their remaining gravitational source strength is particularly sensitive to velocity changes.
e) The gravitational reactivation of matter and the generation of quantum mechanical, longitudinal gravitational waves (quantum mechanical wave function waves) during the expansion or explosion of a superdense, supermassive body; the propagation of this new form of gravitational waves and the action of these waves on the celestial bodies through which they pass.
As the supermassive bodies located at the center of a galaxy move about each other in a quasi regular manner, their velocities and, consequently, their gravitational source strengths are constantly changing in a quasi periodic and aperiodic manner. When such a body changes its gravitational source strength, it emits a quantum mechanical wave function wave that spreads out radially in all directions and carries with it small changes (in the ppb range at 10 kpc distance) in the local particle density of the seaon sea (the vacuum). Since the local electromagnetic properties of the vacuum and the local speed of light depend directly on the local seaon particle density, these physical quantities also change slightly (in the ppb range) within the wave.
When such a vacuum density wave generated at the center of the Galaxy reaches the solar system and passes through the Sun and the Earth, it induces a large number of correlated small-amplitude physical changes in these celestial bodies. In particular, when such a wave passes through the Earth, the atomic Bohr radius and the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, rotational axis angles and non-tidal gravitational acceleration of the Earth change in the ppb range. As a result of the circumference changes, earthquakes are triggered at the tectonic plate boundaries. (These gravitational waves also excite the rigid and elastic body modes of the Earth.)
These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change as does the world climate which displays a quasi-cyclic behavior with a period of 70 – 80 years.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured.
Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years. (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm). Einsteinian theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.
This post-Einstein effect also explains the formation of the multiple rings in ring galaxies, the sudden transitions between the geological strata, as well as the synchronous fluctuation of the solar neutrino flux and the solar wind.
f) The gravitational laser GASER (Gravitational Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) and the supercritical gravitational chain reaction as a result of the nonlinear gravitational interaction of superdense, supermassive bodies. In the case of two closely spaced superdense bodies, this nonlinear interaction can lead to gravitational instability resulting in the explosion of the two strongly interacting bodies. This quantum mechanical post-Einstein-effect could explain the generation of gamma ray bursts.
Ref.: http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
“Graeme I think the universal speed limit came about as a result of Einsteins work and is not some arbitrary assumption. I think Einstein’s maths meant that to accelerate something to greater than the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy.”
No its completely arbitrary. And the tachyon furphy is just a distraction the priesthood comes up with. Its not one of Einsteins. Its simply a roadblock. Its a stupid unscientific roadblock too. Its akin to thinking about fairies at the bottom of the garden that no-one can see.
No-ones ever seen a tachyon. Nor is their evidence for them, nor would there be evidence for them even if they existed.
So no the light-speed limit is in fact arbitrary. There is no reason whatever to believe that this sort of acceleration would take infinite energy. And Einsteins theory isn’t even a theory of relativity. The relativity bit is just in the pre-amble. Its really a doctrine of velocity-absolutism.
One could liken it to a thought experiment where you hold velocity absolute and change all other factors in the equation in order to make a better fit of the data.
Well it seemed to work after a fashion. But this is no way to do science.
I think a bunch of people here are misunderstanding the universal speed limit.
According to Einstein there really is no limit to how fast you can travel through the universe. There is a limit to how fast you appear to be traveling through the universe.
You can go faster and faster to reach any part of the universe in your frame of reference. There is no point where you cannot speed up.
It is only a misunderstanding of the time space dilation equations that leads to these conclusions. As you approach the speed of light, distance shortens in the direction of travel, velocity also increases. This leads to a redefinition of the variables in velocity and distance so the equations change appearance.
From the frame of reference of a spaceship it acceleration would feel exactly the same at any speed and would achieve the same improvement in travel time from it’s own reference frame.
If you want to go to the other side of the universe in 0.1 seconds turn around and come back you can do it under the speed of light. We’ll be a bit older though.
The point is, light, is actually frozen in time. It travels with time. I think of it as a ripple in the either of timespace. The reason that you can’t go the speed of light is simple.
IMHO:
Matter exists in this either as an oscillating standing wave disturbance, in order to oscillate you cannot outrun one axis of your either composition.
Anyway, light is already at infinite speed and it instantly 90 time) crosses the entire universe from its own perspective. Now you can understand how it is not possible for matter to travel light speed. It is also important to know that you actually don’t need to, you can get where you want as fast as you want.
BTW:
I just demonstrated a flaw in the math behind every hockey stick temp graph I am aware of on my blog.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/id-goes-mythbuster-on-hockey-sticks-cps/
“I think a bunch of people here are misunderstanding the universal speed limit.”
There is no universal speed limit. Nor any evidence for one. So already you are off to a bad start champ.
“According to Einstein there really is no limit to how fast you can travel through the universe. ”
No you are wrong. And you surely must be lying. Einsteins theory said that the speed of light was the ultimate speed limit.
“There is a limit to how fast you appear to be traveling through the universe.”
For fucksakes thats wrong on two counts. Thats wrong in terms of special relativity and in terms of observations.
“You can go faster and faster to reach any part of the universe in your frame of reference.”
Buddy. You don’t even know what a frame of reference means. And there is no frame of reference. Thats all crap. There is only a gods-eye point of view and we call this…… listen up now…. we call this…….. REALITY.
“There is no point where you cannot speed up.”
I agree. But here you contradict special relativity as understood by the priesthood.
“It is only a misunderstanding of the time space dilation equations that leads to these conclusions. As you approach the speed of light, distance shortens in the direction of travel, velocity also increases. This leads to a redefinition of the variables in velocity and distance so the equations change appearance.
Oh I get it. You are bouncing from one foot to another.
There is no time dilation. There never was. There is no evidence for time dilation. And on top of that there is no evidence for TIME except as a derived and secondary concept.
“From the frame of reference of a spaceship it acceleration would feel exactly the same at any speed and would achieve the same improvement in travel time from it’s own reference frame.”
Well yes. But nothing would happen elsewhere. All would be normal and according to classical physics.
There is no reference frame but reality. And exception is with straight velocity since matter is composed of orbiting electrons so we have this effect that mimics what would happen if we were all composed of standing waves.
“If you want to go to the other side of the universe in 0.1 seconds turn around and come back you can do it under the speed of light. We’ll be a bit older though.”
No thats all bullshit. Nice try though. But I cannot help thinking you are probably under the age of 16.
The point is, light, is actually frozen in time. It travels with time. I think of it as a ripple in the either of timespace. The reason that you can’t go the speed of light is simple.
IMHO:
Matter exists in this either as an oscillating standing wave disturbance, in order to oscillate you cannot outrun one axis of your either composition.
Anyway, light is already at infinite speed and it instantly 90 time) crosses the entire universe from its own perspective. Now you can understand how it is not possible for matter to travel light speed. It is also important to know that you actually don’t need to, you can get where you want as fast as you want.
BTW:
I just demonstrated a flaw in the math behind every hockey stick temp graph I am aware of on my blog.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/id-goes-mythbuster-on-hockey-sticks-cps/
Goodness me. I didn’t wind up collaring the rest of your quote in inverted comments so it looks like I said it.
No you are quite wrong. Light travels at a finite speed. Its not infinite this here speed. Its finite. And its KNOWN. And it travels no faster than that in a vaccumn. But it can be made to travel faster than that under certain conditions that can be reproduced in the lab.
LIGHT…… like all other things…… can travel faster than “the speed of light”.
Gerame Bird,
Light from its own perspective is traveling at an infinite rate. Distance in the direction of travel is compressed until there is no distance left in the universe. I don’ t know your background but the basic equations are available everywhere.
Find the distance compression equation and put a value near c in for v and you can see what happens to d.
This basic misunderstanding of relativity has lead many non-scientists to reject the possibility imagining light speed to be like a physical wall, where in reality if you were walking on a planet traveling together just below light speed, you wouldn’t notice any difference.
Also, the demo’s of ftl phenomina are not related to physical travel but rather to time-space phenomina oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel. Information will not travel faster than light in this either. It is a misunderstanding of the science to say that light will travel faster than light.
Light doesn’t have a perspective. Its just light. And no time is not dilated. You are merely referring back to a failed paradigm. Its the paradigm under dispute. So obviously it does no good to refer back to it.
A paradigm cannot be verified by reference to itself.
Its like me saying that I dispute the bible and you saying something like “But the good book says “disputations of the world of God……….” “
LIght just travels at a known speed. Something like 300 000 kilometres per second.
You don’t have the evidence for anything else. Don’t pretend that you do.
There is no little man travelling on the leading wave and if there was he wouldn’t experience time differently in accordance with his speed. Its logically contradictory to say he would, since all velocities are relative.
I do enjoy a good argument, but you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding even of high school level general relativity.
If you cannot understand the theory you dispute how can we take you seriously about your own irrational theories.
Best Regards,
The Dummy
So we found out that your argument was in fact NO ARGUMENT and you were just lying.
That leaves us with an argument deficit. Doesn’t it?
YES IT DOES!!!!
So lets go over it again!!!!!
Where is your evidence for a universal speed limit?
Where is your evidence for all these wrong and bizzare assertions that you have been making?
Its not there is it?
You cannot find it?
You are just an idiot mate.
Louis; “is this because of the association with the thunderbolts site, or because of cognitive dissonance.”
No it’s because it’s better discussed on the back porch over a bottle of red and a plate (or two) of cheese and crackers.
My only problem with your posts was your mis-characterization of relativity. I didn’t dispute your ideas, whatever they are.
Have you considered counseling?
I didn’t mischaracterise relativity. You continue to lie about this. I DISPUTED relativity you jerk!!!
You are still lying about this. You haven’t come up with any evidence for the wild conjectures that you are mindlessly parrotting.
“No it’s because it’s better discussed on the back porch over a bottle of red and a plate (or two) of cheese and crackers.”
You can brush it off fella. But the evidence just isn’t there. Thats why you’ve suddenly fallen away in your argumentative ability displayed elsewhere.
This is why you are forced into going about things on a need to know basis.
Its a stupid paradigm this special relativity. Hence you are backing a dead horse. A paradigm at least four decades out of date. If you made arguments in favour of it certain internal inconsistencies would become obvious.
So instead you have hidden under the desk and are now doing things on a need to know basis.
This is cowardly Pompe. You ought to defend this fantasy-paradigm or admit its indefensible.
You are a coward.
Phillip Adams had a fellow on who had discovered how wrong it was. So he then had a believer on a couple of weeks later. The believer didn’t come up with any evidence to defend it beyond saying that it was aesthetically beautiful.
You Pompe haven’t even come up with anything so feeble as THAT.
But it must be understood that its not just Pompe. Its the whole lot of these guys. They defend this without making arguments in favour of it. They only refer back to the theory. They say all sorts of things that are unfalsifiable. But they say many things that are immediately falsifiable without experimentation.
So its a bit like the global warming racket. The main difference is that special relativity was at least a pretty good predictive template that served reasonably well for a time. Whereas the global warming idiocy cannot be used to predict anything. It doesn’t even backtest.
Ok Gerame,
You have convinced me that you are completely off your wagon and quite frightening really. You have referred to me by every name you can think of threatened my physically and all over the fact that you cannot understand a theory you dispute.
I will make one more point to you.
I said,
“There is no point where you cannot speed up.”
You answered.
I agree. But here you contradict special relativity as understood by the priesthood.
This is a mis-characterization of Relativity Theory by you. One of probably a dozen you made.
Really any low level physics course would do you a lot of good.
I suggest you take your meds, calm down get a physics book and read it slowly. After you’re done you can make a much stronger argument for your case. Whatever it is.
You also might get some insight into why your links above aren’t really breaking the speed of light.
Nuts man, really nuts.
Your arguments are without reason and your comments are as misinformed as any I have read on the internet. Quite a feat when you think about it.
It’s always amazing to hear someone believe something so strongly yet have no real knowledge of what they are talking about.
I have been a little mean to you Graeme, kind of like messing with an angry child. So I’ll let you have the last word. You have been good for a few laughs though.
Really you should calm down man. Life is too short and all kinds of politicized beliefs will be forced down our throats whether we like it or not.