[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
I was way into responding to your last when, blamo!!! it all disapeared. I'll
try again but maybe less verbose this time. Look for brown this time.
You know, this sounds very much like you are beginning to understand why I
keep saying that there is no such thing as certainty. There is no certainty in
public knowledge or discourse, but most have some certainty in some of their
individual thinking, even when wrong.
.The margin will still exist. My point is that if the margin is small enough,
it can be ignored.
This is because the heat loss, and there will always be loss, increases with
rising temperature thus for fixed inputs, a balance will always be achieved.
This is a good example of negative feedback. True, but on our dynamic planet,
with multiple feedback mechanizms, changing one input which might suggest heat
retention does not guarantee any heat retention.
I prefer the ignominy of being shown to be wrong rather than the
impossibility of being shown to be wrong. What level of proof would convince
you? Would anything less than the current supporters backing down convince you?
A body, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid experiences an up thrust
equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Testable in any suburban kitchen. I
see no reason to object to your description. When rolling down an incline at a
given angle, all spheres will out accelerate all disks which will out
accelerate all hoops. A bit harder but you should be able to test this in your
garage. I assume the wind resistance on a disk would be less than on a sphere,
but is that more true for a hoop? I don't know, but I see no reason to object.
A syphon will transfer liquids from one vessel to another only while the height
of the surface in the source vessel remains greater than the height of the
surface in the destination vessel. Testable in any suburban laundry. Yes, I've
played with a syphon before.. And here's a beauty! We've all seen the
experiment where a lighted candle placed in a bowl of water is covered by an
inverted cylindrical glass jar whose rim is pushed down below the
surface of the water. What happens initially is that the water in the jar is
pushed down below the level of the surface in the bowl but that presently the
candle extinguishes and shortly after, the water rises in the jar about 20% of
the height and we are told that this demonstrates that the oxygen content of
the air is about 20% by volume since it was used up by the combustion. Well
this is wrong. I have done an experiment which shows that this is wrong.
Further I have deduced why the explanation is wrong. My guess would be: That if
the water does not rise while the candle is still burning than it might not be
due to the combustion of oxygen. Of course the oxygen is not actually used up,
it is combined with other elements and so is still present at the end. I
suppose some of the combustion products might take up less room than the
original. Perhaps when the candle extinguishes, the air can cool and contract,
leaving room for the water rise. Perhaps both explanations are
true to a degree and must be combined.To this date (30 years have elapsed) I
have not received a summons to answer charges of scientific heresy. I would not
expect it to happen as you are not challenging a "sacred cow" here. If you were
to try to get a peer-review on your highly logical and researched paper about
why radiometric dating methods do not establish the exact age of any sample,
you would not be published. I look forward to your comments on these four
examples.
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA
Pleased to have been able to give you a break! |[:-) ... I'll intersperse in
teal.
Paul,
Not a problem. Having a few days between posts is a nice break. I'll
Intersperse with Blue
Peer review of unproven, unprovable supposition by supporters of the same
worldview are meaningless to truth seeking. So much science has nothing to do
with testable-repeatable stuff but with interpreting things so they fitt the
world-view. And that boils it down to faith. How then would you organise so as
to discover truth? For that matter, how would you recognise truth? Pointing out
the trouble with something is always easier than giving a solution. I
personally think that the discovery of absolute truth, on a large scale, by
lots of people, is next to impossible and will not happen till after the end of
the world. But for recognizing truth, you must use the only tools available to
you: 1) gods word 2) logic 3) observation 4) experience. And if you don't
accept #1, then you still have the other 3. You know, this sounds very much
like you are beginning to understand why I keep saying that there is no such
thing as certainty.
When a fact is taken and interpreted according to a world-view and then the
interpretation is presented as fact, you are not engaged in "scientific
practice" you are engaged in "trust in what other people say with no evidence".
The problem is, that if your world-views match, than it would be extremley hard
to recognize the difference. I'm sorry -- I can't get the gyst of what you are
saying here.
When someone makes a point you already agree with, it is difficult to
recognise the interpretation from fact. If you examine the "facts" in your
arsenal, you may find they are interpretations. Quite so. Objectivity is very
difficult to achieve and perfect objectivity impossible.
[1] This is where I want to hear the evidence that makes it "undeniable" that
mans activity is additive and [2] the additive amount equals massive trouble
that requires action. [3] You are still dismissing the possiblity that the sun
is solely responsible for any meaningfull change in global temperatures. I've
broken this into three parts. First. If you create two boxes from plywood, one
metre in all directions, paint them black and put them in the sun with
temperature sensing probes inserted, then after some time you will note that
the temperature will have risen equally in each box, more or less stabilising
after some time. Later in the day as the Sun passes the zenith and sinks toward
the horizon, the indicated temperatures will be found to fall, also equally. If
tomorrow you repeat the experiment but with a lighted candle in one box, you
will note that the temperatures will again track, but the one with the candle
in it will be marginally higher. Make the box a little
bigger and the margin will be even less. Put some holes in the box for a
little heat loss and the margin should get smaller still. Make the box
increasingly large and/or the holes more frequent and eventually the margin
will be unmeasurable. (I'm going to assume here you meant '...boxes...'.)Yes --
but that is just a failure of instrumentation. The margin will still exist. If
the heat sources were truely additive, wouldn't the earth eventually heat-up to
the same temp as rays from the sun and possibly higher if the earth produces
heat of its own? No, absolutely not. This is because the heat loss, and there
will always be loss, increases with rising temperature thus for fixed inputs, a
balance will always be achieved. This is a good example of negative feedback.
Second. This is not certain. I have not claimed that it is. But I have
claimed that it is prudent to consider the possibility that it is. I still so
claim. There is a difference between considering something and acting on
something. I would say that you advocate the position that it is true. At this
point I believe it prudent to act as if it were true. Some of the possibilities
I have seen suggest that there are some possitive feedback mechanisms which
would produce -- at a certain temperature -- an accelerating temperature rise
until a new balance is achieved. This new balance temperature could be higher
than life could sustain, with the exceptions perhaps being those heat loving
organisms which live in sulphurous hot springs. Given a choice between the
human species -- and our companion temperate loving species -- becoming
extinct, I prefer the ignominy of being shown to be wrong rather than the
impossibility of being shown to be wrong.
Third. Yes -- because, as explained above, you could only claim this to be so
if you took Man and his activities out of the equasion. I note however your use
of 'meaningful'. My comment ignores this. Yes, "meaningful" would make a
difference.
From an earlier post From Paul Deema Sat Jun 16 23:11:59 2007-- (you in red).
You could start with facts - but be ready to be challenged on whether you've
actually given a fact or simply an interpretation based on a worldview. A body,
wholly or partially immersed in a fluid experiences an up thrust equal to the
weight of the fluid displaced. Testable in any suburban kitchen. When rolling
down an incline at a given angle, all spheres will out accelerate all disks
which will out accelerate all hoops. A bit harder but you should be able to
test this in your garage. A syphon will transfer liquids from one vessel to
another only while the height of the surface in the source vessel remains
greater than the height of the surface in the destination vessel. Testable in
any suburban laundry. And here's a beauty! We've all seen the experiment where
a lighted candle placed in a bowl of water is covered by an inverted
cylindrical glass jar whose rim is pushed down below the surface of the water.
What happens initially is that the water in the jar is pushed down
below the level of the surface in the bowl but that presently the candle
extinguishes and shortly after, the water rises in the jar about 20% of the
height and we are told that this demonstrates that the oxygen content of the
air is about 20% by volume since it was used up by the combustion. Well this is
wrong. I have done an experiment which shows that this is wrong. Further I have
deduced why the explanation is wrong. To this date (30 years have elapsed) I
have not received a summons to answer charges of scientific heresy. I look
forward to your comments on these four examples.
I gave you four examples. I'm still looking forward to your comments. I'll
try to comment on your examples in the next day or two. No hurry -- I have
other pressing matters at this time anyway. You might also give a thought to my
several responses concerning indoctrination in that same post).
Paul D
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
Other related posts:
