Forum Search

Forum Search

Public Forums Only
Search by Author (Last month only)
Public forum posts since 19 Jun '19 .
Enter the exact name of the post author
  1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Jul '19 19:59
    @kellyjay said
    You have nothing on the beginning of the universe or life
    Ever heard of the "big bang" or "abiogenesis"?
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Jul '19 10:44
    @kellyjay said
    Science is about truth
    -that can be rationally and formally obtained via evidence and/or logic, yes.
    That's the same science that has proven we and all life we so far know of evolved from a common ancestor and the Earth is a few billion years old.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    13 Jul '19 14:38
    @kellyjay said
    Your mind reading skill sets are a little off, I don't know where you need to go to check out that strange ability of yours knowing what people want, but it needs some fine tuning.
    Oh come off it. Who are you trying to kid here? The anti-science religious Christian-God-made-first-life propaganda agenda couldn't be more obvious here.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Jul '19 17:30
    @deepthought saidSo it is unsurprising that he omitted the units as that would have made it obvious that his calculation was seriously flawed.
    ...and he KNEW it was seriously flawed when he presented it.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Jul '19 15:29
    @metal-brain said
    No, you didn't. Everything you mentioned was non specific and irrelevant. Facts are relevant.
    The fact I mentioned that what is written in that link is gibberish is a specific relevant fact.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Jul '19 08:20
    @metal-brain said

    If there is something incorrect in the article point it out.
    We already have.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Jul '19 17:541 edit
    @metal-brain said
    You are claiming it is flawed so you prove it.
    To explain how it is flawed, you have to first need to learn real physics rather than that gibberish, which you are clearly incapable of doing. Any real physicist that reads that gibberish will tell you its all nonsense. You must be desperate to resort to using that.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Jul '19 13:258 edits
    @metal-brain said
    In other words science isn't really science unless you agree with it.
    Nope. That's your attitude, not mine. Gibberish made to sound vaguely sciencey to dishonestly pass as science, like you have got in your link, isn't science. The fact you have resorted to using such a link with such dishonesty and lies says it all.
    Water vapor and CO2 is what this study is based on, not CO2 alone
    What study? There was no such study done there. Its not a 'study' but just made up crap masquerading as a scientific study to convince stupid people like you of the lie that science says there is no CO2 induced warming and even pushes the absurdity that CO2 cools the climate! The only thing that was "based on" is lies propaganda and made up crap.

    I see you refuse my challenge to clearly explain in your own words only the exact maths reasoning that went into each and every one of those equations on that link. I know why you refuse, you don't understand the maths reasoning because there is none there, just made up crap.
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Jul '19 09:517 edits
    @metal-brain said
    http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
    The author of that link claims to made calculations that show the absurd conclusion that CO2 works " like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface". He says one hell a lot of made-up crap, consisting of complete made-up gibberish pretending to be scientific by designed to sound vaguely sciencey such as "...mean free path length of the quantum/waves through those gases", which is just completely made up crap rather than real physics.
    And, if his calculations really DID show this, and I have looked at them and they appear not to because is maths formulations appear strange and warped and laughable and don't make a whole lot of sense (and if you deny this, I challenge you to clearly explain in your own words only the exact maths reasoning that went into each and every one of those equations! ), then it would be big news and headline news all over the world. But it isn't headline news all over the world and that tells us that other physicists that look at his calculations must see they are flawed and probably extremely badly flawed at that, being just made up crap rather than completely correctly expressed and correctly applied physics equations. Thus our only rational conclusion is that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, exactly like basic physics says it should.
    He vaguely says something about his conclusion of CO2 having a cooling effect is something to do with atmospheric water vapor and CO2 having overlapping IR spectrum bands, which makes no sense as an explanation because;

    1, Overlapping IR spectrum bands won't cause cooling. Why should it? Why would that overlap mean more CO2 means LESS total IR absorbed and thus less warming? It wouldn't.

    2, Much of the IR absorbed from CO2 isn't absorbed by water vapor and much of the IR absorbed from water vapor isn't absorbed by CO2, so that overlap is only PARTIAL. So, regardless of IR absortion overlap, why would there be no warming effect from that IR part absorbed by CO2 which is NOT absorbed by water vapor?

    In short, the author makes obviously false claims that make no sense and is obviously just a nut like you and no doubt he would be dismissed as much by the scientific community.
    And, with all else being equal, more CO2 means more climate warming, exactly like basic physics says it should and just as confirmed by the empirical evidence.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Jul '19 12:106 edits
    @kellyjay said
    Okay, lets see some evidence on the universe starting out of nothing (or something to be named later), if not then do you acknowledge a cause outside of the universe itself is responsible
    1, Just to be clear, I don't believe the universe "came from nothing", because that makes no sense. Nothing can come from nothing.

    2, If, in every sense, all of time started at the beginning of our universe (and I don't have an opinion on whether that is true) then that means the universe didn't "came from nothing" because the universe didn't "came" because it was causeless and is just a brute fact. Note I don't actually exclude the possibility that time always existed i.e. has no beginning before the big bang of this current universe.

    3, I don't exclude the possibility that there is something outside of the universe, such as higher dimensions and/or multiverse etc, from which our universe came from and was caused by.

    4, If possibilities 3 above are true, that doesn't imply a bearded old man in the sky probably had something to do with it, because that would just be silly.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Jul '19 19:39
    @kellyjay said
    I'm not an ID believer in that I think evolution is how God brought about life,
    Evolution theory isn't a theory of how life began.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Jul '19 18:361 edit
    @kellyjay said
    I'm not sure what you mean by real evidence,
    Physical evidence that can be verified by observation and/or experiment as valid by other groups anywhere on modern Earth; Mere hearsay and claims made in mere stories don't count.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    04 Jul '19 12:401 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Nuclear has killed more people since Chernobyl than coal.
    False.
    Think air pollution.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    04 Jul '19 08:496 edits
    @metal-brain said
    By your logic nothing is safe unless it never kills anyone.
    No, by my logic, 'safe' is always a relative term and there should always be an intelligent trade-off between safety and risks and/or costs.
    According to your logic this is clearly not the case.
    Your argument is that nuclear is wrong because it has killed some people but coal mining has also killed some people thus according to your own logic coal power is also wrong and any form of energy production is also wrong!
    My logic says, although some can be wrong, none are wrong merely simply because it has killed some people and its just a matter of choosing whichever ones, according to our best and most thoughtful judgments, seems to have the greatest benefit-to-cost ratio where that 'cost' can be defined in terms of the approximate number of people likely to be killed per GWh (giga watt hour) of energy produced; in other words, the GWh-to-number-of-deaths ratio. Especially if taking into account deaths via air pollution, coal happens to have wildly by far one of the lowest GWh-to-number-of-deaths ratios and I have shown you links showing that. That's why, according to my logic, that is one good reason why nuclear is better than coal power; its because it leads to less number of deaths per GWh generated. Personally I think it would be better to go renewable with perhaps only some nuclear to compliment that but, regardless of whether I am right about that, more coal power is certainly NOT the answer!
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    04 Jul '19 07:492 edits
    @metal-brain said
    You have offered absolutely no alternative explanation to Greene's time warp being time dilation.
    What has calling "time dilation" "time warp" got to do with it?
    That's not what we are arguing about.
    And how do you know he meant "time dilation" by "time warp"?
    Even if he did mean that then that would only mean that he totally unnecessarily used the wrong term for it thus indicating he didn't explain the physics well.
    And none of this changes the fact that Deepthought, who is GR expert, disagrees with you, thus you make no point.
Back to Top

Search Site Content