Miningman LensCapOn- Good post...exactly! Divided issue that no one will change their opinion on and it could go on forever and to what end? ...which leads us to........Euclid,- think long and hard about that and I think you go insane or something. The answer is probably simplicity itself, staring us right in the face, "can't see the forest for the trees" thing. We are not there yet but were designed to get there one day.
LensCapOn- Good post...exactly! Divided issue that no one will change their opinion on and it could go on forever and to what end? ...which leads us to........Euclid,- think long and hard about that and I think you go insane or something. The answer is probably simplicity itself, staring us right in the face, "can't see the forest for the trees" thing. We are not there yet but were designed to get there one day.
Yes, I tend to think you on the right track. Every part of our reality can be observed and taken as what you see is what you get. It can be studied to learn all of the interaction and behavior; all of the cause and effect. In that sense, it seems like everything can be learned. And yet infinity of time and space is also part of our reality, and it is utterly incomprehensible to the thinking mind.
Because infinity cannot be reconciled with the things that make up reality, that suggests to me that ultimately, those things are not what they appear to be. The answer to this may be staring us in the face as you say. It may be accessible somehow by direct experience.
I know what you mean about the effect of thinking long and hard about the mystery of infinity. A person can easily express the concept of something continuing forever, but when I actually dwell on trying to visualize it, I start to feel like I might tip over.
As we wander off the beaten path...
Euclid Electroliner 1935 When did time start? Will it end? That is a good question. It seems to me that both time and space have to be infinite. Just as it is impossible to imagine space beginning with nothing preceding it, and ending with nothing beyond it; it is also impossible to imagine time beginning with no time preceding it or ending with no time after the ending of time. It is actually impossible to imagine there being no time, and being no space. So they have to be infinite, but that is equally impossible to imagine.
Electroliner 1935 When did time start? Will it end?
When did time start? Will it end?
That is a good question. It seems to me that both time and space have to be infinite. Just as it is impossible to imagine space beginning with nothing preceding it, and ending with nothing beyond it; it is also impossible to imagine time beginning with no time preceding it or ending with no time after the ending of time. It is actually impossible to imagine there being no time, and being no space. So they have to be infinite, but that is equally impossible to imagine.
People like defined space and time, and as you note, it is very hard to fathom infinity.
There are stars, galaxies, and other celestial bodies in existance that we'll never know about because the light from them isn't here yet.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I didn't read all the posts but I do wonder why climate change(previously known as Global warming), has become such a big hot potato and nothing else matters but how we are going to survive this massive problem of burning products that produce CO2...
Why is this such a narrow focus of governments and people?
Any body know how much radiation is in the atmosphere from world wide nuclear testing?... How long it will be falling out of the atmosphere?
How much pastic is floating around the oceans? How much this plastic is destroying life as we know it?
These questions are the unknowns and there is very little effort put into solving those problems.. Oil consumption for plastics production is way more than fuel consumption and the plastics go no where... You maybe be able to re-use plastic in other forms but the end result is a synthetic that stays put forever, same as synthesised isotopes...
One of the first posters pointed out solar activity, solar winds have been slowing for quite some time and we have known that these winds extract co2 from our atmosphere, along with other gases... The whole debate on MMCC has become a loosing argument when the IPCC rework there data everytime the raw data does not match the results they predicted in the previous 5 or so years...
The computer modelling for MMCC global warming, was written by Dr David Evans... He stated that the modelling didn't show global warming, thus it didnt exist as man made.. Yet the IPCC still pushed it then changed it to climate change..
Whats wrong with that..."When a lier is shown up, they will change there story to keep making it believable", bit like politicions and lawyers... We dont believe them, why believe a government based panel... "INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL on Climate Change"
I read Physics Today regularly. This is a very hot topic in that magazine, and there is no uninimity of opionion, with many warning against man-made climate change also admitting that other factors are important, and that we are still learning about their combined effects and the relative wieght of each.
The arguments are conducted respectfully with people agreeing that they must learn from each other, which is the spirit of this excellent magazine.
wraitheWhy is this such a narrow focus of governments and people?
Just follow the money...
There is nothing quite so arrogant as the human being. Remember not so long ago it was thought that this 'flat rock' we inhabit was the center of the universe with the Sun and Stars all revolving around us. We continue to project that arrogance in many ways today.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, follow the money, and the natural greed of government to tax and regulate every detail of our lives. Why it just so happens that Climate Change dogma serves this goal with perfection. What a coincidence!
wraithe Any body know how much radiation is in the atmosphere from world wide nuclear testing?... How long it will be falling out of the atmosphere?
In the early 1960's. the typical dose from weapons testing fallout was on the order of 100 milli-REM per year, about the same as the sea-level background dose in areas where radon is not a problem (radon is naturally occurring). By the late 1970's, weapons testing dose was on the order of 2 to 5 milli-REM per year, about the equivalent of a cross country flight. Radiation dose from weapons testing is less than from potassium in the body - naturally occuring radioactive potassium has a half life greater than 10 billion years and is responsible for the Argon that makes up about 1% of the atmosphere.
wraithe ...I do wonder why climate change(previously known as Global warming), has become such a big hot potato and nothing else matters but how we are going to survive this massive problem of burning products that produce CO2... Why is this such a narrow focus of governments and people?
...I do wonder why climate change(previously known as Global warming), has become such a big hot potato and nothing else matters but how we are going to survive this massive problem of burning products that produce CO2...
Wraithe, I wholeheartedly recommend you read the book, THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST by Thomas Sowell. I think you'll find it very helpful. Available through Amazon and others.
In it he quotes British historian Paul Johnson:
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
And by the way, another quote of Paul Johnson's:
As a child I found railroad stations exciting, mysterious, and even beautiful, as indeed they often were.
erikem wraithe Any body know how much radiation is in the atmosphere from world wide nuclear testing?... How long it will be falling out of the atmosphere? In the early 1960's. the typical dose from weapons testing fallout was on the order of 100 milli-REM per year, about the same as the sea-level background dose in areas where radon is not a problem (radon is naturally occurring). By the late 1970's, weapons testing dose was on the order of 2 to 5 milli-REM per year, about the equivalent of a cross country flight. Radiation dose from weapons testing is less than from potassium in the body - naturally occuring radioactive potassium has a half life greater than 10 billion years and is responsible for the Argon that makes up about 1% of the atmosphere.
Narrow that down a little and not radiation doses but particles present... Synthetic particles like Plutonium etc that are not present in nature... Now how many of these un-natural elements are present...
No I am not an activist or greenie, I am one of those that question and consider...
I also have experimented with and use tractor exhaust gases to sow with in the paddocks... Proven method to innoculate seed and plants grown with this method handle dry conditions during the early growth stage, better than plants grown without... Also they tolerate frost better... Also have tipped diesel sump oil around trees that have been struggling to grow and seen them surpass the ones that where growing better than, before....
I will listen and read but I will always question and consider for myself(probably the reason I didnt do well at school, teachers always called me a smart$%#e..)...
The next thing to consider, data or information that is passed on, is it proven and not just accepted, as in peer reviewed... because reviewed means the members of the fraternity accepting that you are right, and if your not liked then your information is dumped as crock... A process that has no merit really, again comes back to a group of bullies and bull...
wraitheI will listen and read but I will always question and consider for myself(probably the reason I didnt do well at school, teachers always called me a smart$%#e..)... The next thing to consider, data or information that is passed on, is it proven and not just accepted, as in peer reviewed... because reviewed means the members of the fraternity accepting that you are right, and if your not liked then your information is dumped as crock... A process that has no merit really, again comes back to a group of bullies and bull...
The peer review process can have its flaws, but it usually catches the problems in the research article submitted. It is rigorous. Ask people in those fields about articles rejected, or articles accepted, published and then ripped to shreds by other researchers. You clearly only have listened to the propaganda machine financed by self-serving $ from big oil and the coal lobby. It is certainly superior to uninformed opinions by people who have next to zero knowledge in a given field.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
GrampTHE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST by Thomas Sowell
Sowell is a brilliant but controversial economist with provocative ideas, who writes about any and all issues, bouncing around from one academic post or think tank to another. Unfortunately his methodology seems to lack the rigor usually demanded.
Schlimm, what's your opinion of Irwin D.J. Bross?
The biostatistician? Not in my bailiwick, but from what I know, his methodology was very influential.
schlimm Gramp THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST by Thomas Sowell Sowell is a brilliant but controversial economist with provocative ideas, who writes about any and all issues, bouncing around from one academic post or think tank to another. Unfortunately his methodology seems to lack the rigor usually demanded.
Gramp THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST by Thomas Sowell
Sowell has been Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University since 1980.
His CV: http://www.tsowell.com/cv.html
I think generally he sees reality more clearly. Not a member of "The Matrix".
Gramp British historian Paul Johnson
Calling a guy with a BA, even from Oxford, a historian is a stretch. He's considered to be a writer and popular historian. But for rightists (like Stowell) and anti-union folks (Johnson is one) he'd be your hero.
Yes, Sowell found his niche as a fellow at the ultra-right Hoover Institute, but earlier he jumped around academia: Howard, Cornell, Brandeis, Urban Institute, UCLA over a 15 year period.
schlimm Gramp British historian Paul Johnson Calling a guy with a BA, even from Oxford, a historian is a stretch. He's considered to be a writer and popular historian. But for rightists (like Stowell) and anti-union folks (Johnson is one) he'd be your hero. Yes, Sowell found his niche as a fellow at the ultra-right Hoover Institute, but earlier he jumped around academia: Howard, Cornell, Brandeis, Urban Institute, UCLA over a 15 year period.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Merry Christmas! Googled “popular historian” and got a 1903 article about John Fiske, whoever he was.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_205AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3359&dq=%22john+fiske+as+a+popular+historian%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWjYu-3I_RAhUE4iYKHWUGAdwQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22john%20fiske%20as%20a%20popular%20historian%22&f=true
https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Fiske
Some wise man once posted on these pages that there is no such thing as "Global Climate Stay the Same". So, as in all things, change is inevitable.
Are we making things "worse" by using cabon based fuels? How much "worse"? It's obviously debatable and uncertain.
What we've got to watch for is the use of the ultimate threat. As in: "We're going to destroy our planet if we don't do as the 'experts' tell us".
Another wise man once said: "War is the friend of the state." Well, being in a war implies a threat, and such threats are used by governments to limit personal liberties and confiscate personal wealth. In the past the US Government has done vile things and justified its actions by the threats, real or concocted, that it must "protect" us from.
Examples include: putting Americans in concentration camps because of their race, seizing the telephone system, seizing all radio stations, and refusing to deliver periodicals in the US Mail when those publications disputed official policy. All these and more were "justified" as necessary to deal with some threat.
Now some people have come up with kind of an ultimate threat: "We're going to destroy our planet if we don't do as we're told."
The solutions proposed (read Malcom Kenton's deranged blog) inevitably involve the surrender of our liberties and personal wealth to the "authorities" who will decide how we can live and move about.
Be very suspicious about surrendering such things. They won't be regained easily or cheaply. Cheaply as in terms of money and blood.
Murphy SidingWhat's the difference between a historian and a popular historian?
Probably about $100,000 a year.
[The following are generalizations.] Pop historians lack the academic training (Ph.D.) which (academic) historians have. The latters' works are usually researched in greater depth, especially using whenever possible primary sources. Historians are usually attached to universities. They submit articles to peer-reviewed journals. They may write books or stick to articles and monographs. Their topics are frequently ones that would not likely interest the general public.
greyhoundsThe solutions proposed (read Malcom Kenton's deranged blog) inevitably involve the surrender of our liberties and personal wealth to the "authorities" who will decide how we can live and move about.
Citing a foolish young man's (who has ZERO training in climatology) blog as typifying the views of those who see the hazards of global warming, is like citing Richard Spencer's views on mental health. His notions (not really ideas) are irrelevant.
A possible breakthrough in carbon capture from....Exxon-Mobil!
schlimm Citing a foolish young man's (who has ZERO training in climatology) blog as typifying the views of those who see the hazards of global warming, is like citing Richard Spencer's views on mental health. His notions (not really ideas) are irrelevant.
It seems like the biggest issue on the minds of those who believe that manmade climate change is posing a threat is that some people do not believe it. The believers act like the non-believers are preventing a solution to the problem.
So just what is it that is supposed to happen if everyone were to suddenly decide to believe that MMCC is occurring and is a threat?
Euclid It seems like the biggest issue on the minds of those who believe that manmade climate change is posing a threat is that some people do not believe it. The believers act like the non-believers are preventing a solution to the problem. So just what is it that is supposed to happen if everyone were to suddenly decide to believe that MMCC is occurring and is a threat?
I suspect that you'll find few folks who don't believe that climate change is occurring, and it's well known that man does have an affect on the climate and can have an effect on mitigating that effect.
Where you'll get a fight is when it's inferred that climate change is occurring solely because of man.
tree68Where you'll get a fight is when it's inferred that climate change is occurring solely because of man.
I accept (as opposed to believe, as in religion) what many scientists who research this say, which is not just one statement, as in ideology. I know few, if any supporters of climate change mitigation who think man is solely to blame. Extremists who say that are wrong. However, man's contribution this the only part we can do anything about.
tree68 Euclid It seems like the biggest issue on the minds of those who believe that manmade climate change is posing a threat is that some people do not believe it. The believers act like the non-believers are preventing a solution to the problem. So just what is it that is supposed to happen if everyone were to suddenly decide to believe that MMCC is occurring and is a threat? I suspect that you'll find few folks who don't believe that climate change is occurring, and it's well known that man does have an affect on the climate and can have an effect on mitigating that effect. Where you'll get a fight is when it's inferred that climate change is occurring solely because of man.
Yes I think it is obvious to most people that the climate changes all the time just like the weather changes. When I refer to manmade climate change, I mean climate change caused by man that is doing significant damage. It is the kind of climate change that a lot of people say is destroying the planet.
But what I want to know is why it is so essential that we all agree that manmade climate change is destroying the planet. I don't agree with that. Why is that so troubling to those who do believe it?
They act like there is some giant solution to saving the earth from climate change, and that solution can only go forward if we all believe that climate change is destroying the earth.
What is the giant solution, and why must we all support it in order to make it work?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.