Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. ... I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into account one or more second-order cyclical trends. Eric
RE: [Vo]:It must be magnetism
Axil, How about a very dynamic isotropy? while C MUST appear constant throughout our macro frame adhering to the rules of SR, acceleration and gravitational fields, what if….. the rate of virtual particles passing through our plane had a certain dynamic flow. By the rules of SR we could never be aware of this flow at the macro scale since this rate reflects in the clock rate for all physical matter.. but these anomalous radioactive decay rates and relativistic like forms of hydrogen with exotic ground states make me ask the question, what if quantum geometries at the nano scale can accumulate an opposition to this flow into the physical scale–segregating it into faster and slower regions inside and outside the suppression zones where longer vacuum wavelengths have to dilate to pass thru our plane? The solar activity you cite wrt change in nuclear decay could be the SAME normal percentage of suppression in the radioactive geometry illuminating a change in isotropy that we as macro participants in the isotropy are unable to detect - our inertial frame is unchanged relative to macroverse – I am not talking about a change from any spatial direction that would be detectable but rather variation in the pressure of the Dirac sea or along the temporal axis. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:18 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:It must be magnetism On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare. Read more at: http://phys.org/news201795438.html#jCp The unknown force from the sun must not only increase nuclear decay rates but reduce them. This is an important clue to the nature of this unknown factor. Radioactive decay rates must be embedded in an environment that defines its nature. That environment can be increased or decreased based on solar activity and in fact is defined by solar activity. The sun must provide an average background flux that directly affects the rates of decay. Various parts of the sun contribute to this background. This background comes from the core of the sun, but it can also be effected by localized regions on the sun’s surface. It must be magnetism. Here is why… The high magnetic fields in the sunspot-producing active regions also give rise to explosions known as solar flares. When the twisted field lines cross and reconnect, energy explodes outward with a force exceeding that of millions of hydrogen bombs. Temperatures in the outer layer of the sun, known as the corona, typically fall around a few million kelvins. As solar flares push through the corona, they heat its gas to anywhere from 10 to 20 million K, occasionally reaching as high as a hundred million. Because solar flares form in the same active regions as sunspots, they are connected to these smaller, less violent events. Flares tend to follow the same 11-year cycle. At the peak of the cycle, several flares may occur each day, with an average lifetime of only 10 minutes. Solar flares vary in size and power. The largest, X-class flares have the most significant effect on Earth. They can cause long-lasting radiation storms in the upper atmosphere, and trigger radio blackouts. Medium-size M-class flares can cause brief radio blackouts in the Polar Regions and the occasional minor radiation storms. C-class flares have few noticeable consequences. Absorbing X-rays affects the atmosphere. The increase in heat and energy result in an expansion of the Earth's ionosphere. Man-made radio waves travel through this portion of the upper atmosphere, so radio communications can be disturbed by its sudden unpredictable growth. Similarly, satellites previously circling through vacuum-free space can find themselves caught in the expanded sphere. The resulting friction slows down their orbit, and can bring them back to Earth sooner than intended. Despite their size and high energy, solar flares are almost never visible optically. The bright emission of the surrounding photosphere, where the sun's light originates, tends to overshadow even these explosive phenomena. Radio and optical emissions can be observed on Earth. What I am saying in so many words is that solar flares are very powerful. Clearly, a tremendous amount of magnetic energy is converted in an instant to all the aforementioned energetic phenomena at the expense of the magnetic output of the sun. The sun stores vast amounts of energy in its magnetic fields. A sudden release and conversion of that energy will reduce that magnetic energy storehouse and consequentially reduce the magnetic background around
[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
This is not OT since this is science. A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 4. Vollosovitch Mammoth: one part 29,500 years old, another part 44,000 years old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska Geological Survey Professional Paper #62 5. Dino (frozen baby mammoth): one part 40,000 years old, another part 26,000 years old, wood around mammoth 9-10,000 years old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska Geological Survey Professional Paper #62 6. Fairbanks creek mammoth: lower leg dated 15,380 years old, skin and flesh 21,300 years old - Harold E. Anthony Nature's Deep Freeze Natural History Sept 1949 p300 7. 2 mammoths found in Alaska: one was 22,850 years old, the other 16,150 years old - Robert M. Thorson and R Dale Guthrie :Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth locality Alaska Quaternary Research Vol 37, March 1992 pp214-228 8. Eleven skeletons of earliest human remains in the western hemisphere all dated less than 5000 years old. - R.E. Taylor Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, American Antiquity Vol 50 no. 1, 1985 pp136-140 9 Ngadong river beds dated 300,000 years old plus or minus 300,000 years (that's right, the error is the same as the age) - Birdsell. J.B. Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally 1975) p295 There are many more example but I got tired of typing. Enjoy looking up the references. Next! Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with one another. Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated before we can be sure they are real. What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like. The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
JoJo, Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with one another. Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated before we can be sure they are real. What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like. The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
OK, what would be the explanation why different parts of the mammoth would be dated so widely differently? A few hundred years maybe acceptable, but thousands of years is ridiculous. The only explanation is that the technique is faulty and unreliable. The dates are all after 1950s. So your objection is unwarranted. I forgot to mention, the last example is dated using K-AR radionucleotides. The skeleton measurements are not outliers. All of them dated less than 5000 years old. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Stewie, No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand. How can we build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific methods? Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably enough for it to be useful; unless one is inclined to claim it is reliable because the data fits one's own preconceived theories - ie. Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating JoJo, Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with one another. Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated before we can be sure they are real. What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like. The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years. An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results. You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
I don't believe time exists (we are all just decaying), some at different rates than others. But it is good to try and make sense of it all. On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Stewie, No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand. How can we build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific methods? Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably enough for it to be useful; unless one is inclined to claim it is reliable because the data fits one's own preconceived theories - ie. Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com'); *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 10:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating JoJo, Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com'); wrote: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jojoiznar...@gmail.com'); wrote: It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with one another. Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated before we can be sure they are real. What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like. The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar reasons. - Jed
[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide circulation. Do you think these are all errors? Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it? Your contention that these measured dates are errors simply do not make sense. Every measurement that does not fit your preconcieved theory must be an outlier and an instrument error. Only those that fit your theory are valid, hence carbon dating is valid. I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a few I found. There are hundreds more cases of such faulty readings. Yet, you claim that all these are faulty and instrument errors. How can one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS? Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating examples. Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like you just did. The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years. An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results. You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Yes ADD. No I do not believe time exists, wives made it up to tell husbands when they are late. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating examples. Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like you just did. The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com'); *To:* John Milstone javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years. An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results. You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com');
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, while you are at it, would you tell me what kind of mushroom are you taking: Except that we don't realize that these aliens are not extraterrestrial BIOLOGICAL beings from another planet. These ALIENS are aliens to our dimension. They are INTERDIMENSIONAL beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons, controlling our destiny thru their proxy of wicked men composing the Masonic Order, the Illuminati and other Secret Societies. The last US president who tried to oppose them ended with a bullet in his head. They already know who I am and where I live. I already have a bull's eye on my back. I'd be dead already except that I am not too much of nuisance yet and more importantly, they can't. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:global warming?
To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of the opinions of climatologists are simply worthless in relation to the world at large - except for their ability to make accurate predictions. Really, of what general value would climatology be without an established record of prediction? It would come painfully close to being a pseudo-science. This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's where the problem seems to be.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Danny boy, I wanted to respond to this assertion earlier but I was laughing so hard, that I had to calm down first before I can respond sensibly. So, the river is between 0-600,000 years old using K-AR dating. Well, praise mother earth, that is some useful result. Heck, why do we even need to measure its age. We already know the Earth is between 0 - 4.6 billion years old. ROTFLMAO Jojo PS: Seriously man, you're killing me.ROTFLMAO - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Genesis 6:1-5 It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
And they are aliens because...? 2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Genesis 6:1-5 It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Oh ... the decay rates are accurate and more or less stable all right. It's the assumptions surrounding this that I have a lot of problems with. For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? There is proof that C-14 levels have not reached equilibrium in our atmosphere. C-14 levels are still increasing today. And they vary from year to year, decade to decade based on our suns' temper tantrums. How can we be so confident assuming we understand C-14 levels from 5,000 years ago, when we can't even predict the weather 48 hours from now. If C-14 levels are lower in the past, it is clear that ages determined using Carbon dating would read ages that are older than they should be. I believe the crazy mammoth readings we get should make that abundantly clear. But for some reason, people can't seem to process this simple fact. Radionucleotide Dating techniques are inherently unreliable because we do not fully understand the validity of our assumptions surrounding this technique. Jojo - Original Message - From: Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:37 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels. In fact that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man made sources. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Because they are Interdimensional Beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons. But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can educate you. There are 2 current prevailing theories of who the aliens are. One theory says these UFO aliens are biological beings from distant star systems travelling to us using hyper warp speeds. (Faster than warp 10, otherwise, they'll never get here because of the vast distances.) The other theory, which was promoted by Jacques Vallee (a non-christian) says that there is valid reason to believe that these UFOs are beings from another dimension of existence. These are spiritual beings, demons and other interdimensional manifestations. (let me help you out... google Interdimensional hypothesis) That would explain for instance how these UFOs appear to be incorporeal and shapeshift at will. Biological beings can not shapeshift. (Oh.. I forgot, yes they can according to Captain Piccard.) Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating And they are aliens because...? 2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Genesis 6:1-5 It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the Bible are more trustful than science. 2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can educate you. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html 2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
And what exactly makes science more trustworthy. Is it because it is repeatable? or is it because we can feel it with our senses? or simply because it is presumed to be the opposite of religion? It seems that science now a days means anything that is anti-relgion. To me science is simply the search for the truth. Whatever the search leads to should be considered. Science should not exclude a whole class of explanations because it is not repeatable or can not be experienced with our five senses. There are many concepts today that pretend to be science which are not repeatable, can not be observed and measured. Yet, they are science. I am assuming I do not need to elaborate about Charlie's theory. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the Bible are more trustful than science. 2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can educate you. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question your ability to make science. 2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Is it because it is repeatable? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
More assumptions to calibrate an assumption. Whatever Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html 2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question your ability to make science. 2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Is it because it is repeatable? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate. I suspect that their model is far more complex than a simple linear model and of much higher order. The net prediction of future temperatures is a result of how all of these terms combine and it will diverge more and more rapidly from the fitting base data as time progresses. The higher order effects contain the more rapidly changing processes. Cyclic behavior can be modeled by a series. A good example of this is demonstrated by the infinite series that can be used to construct a sine wave. For small time periods the linear term does a pretty good job of matching the curve. As you move forward in time, the other, higher order terms, become the most significant ones which then allows the overall function to go through its cyclic behavior. The appearance of the temperature pause and the description that it might well last until 2025 and is cyclic strongly suggests that the underlying phenomena responsible for this behavior has been in effect during the rapid temperature rise and could be one of the reasons for the high slope seen. If so, the very dominate earlier seen hockey stick temperature rise has overstated the true underlying increase rate. As corrections are included to the models we may find that mans contributions are overwhelmed by natural effects and that is why I feel that caution is in order. Had there been no long term unexpected pause we may have continued to give unwarranted confidence to the models and their expert constructors. Some day I believe that we will be capable of making predictions about climate change that match the real world, but that day has not arrived. Of course even then the world throws curve balls our way in the form of volcanoes, changing solar activity, and etc. which makes extremely long term predictions a guess at best. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 2:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. ... I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into account one or more second-order cyclical trends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Dave, I agree. Maybe the tug of gravity can be endothermic or exothermic depending upon local conditions On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate. I suspect that their model is far more complex than a simple linear model and of much higher order. The net prediction of future temperatures is a result of how all of these terms combine and it will diverge more and more rapidly from the fitting base data as time progresses. The higher order effects contain the more rapidly changing processes. Cyclic behavior can be modeled by a series. A good example of this is demonstrated by the infinite series that can be used to construct a sine wave. For small time periods the linear term does a pretty good job of matching the curve. As you move forward in time, the other, higher order terms, become the most significant ones which then allows the overall function to go through its cyclic behavior. The appearance of the temperature pause and the description that it might well last until 2025 and is cyclic strongly suggests that the underlying phenomena responsible for this behavior has been in effect during the rapid temperature rise and could be one of the reasons for the high slope seen. If so, the very dominate earlier seen hockey stick temperature rise has overstated the true underlying increase rate. As corrections are included to the models we may find that mans contributions are overwhelmed by natural effects and that is why I feel that caution is in order. Had there been no long term unexpected pause we may have continued to give unwarranted confidence to the models and their expert constructors. Some day I believe that we will be capable of making predictions about climate change that match the real world, but that day has not arrived. Of course even then the world throws curve balls our way in the form of volcanoes, changing solar activity, and etc. which makes extremely long term predictions a guess at best. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 2:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. ... I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into account one or more second-order cyclical trends. Eric
[Vo]:Algasol Photobioreactor Showcase
For technical details of the photobioreactor and its economics see the see Algasol's presentation at the 2013 European Algal Biomass Conference https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf . Algasol Renewables pr...@algasolrenewables.com via http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail auth.ccsend.com 12:04 PM (7 minutes ago) to jb [image: PNG logo] Greetings! In order to best serve our current and future clients, Algasol is pleased to announce the opening of our algae growth facility on the island of Mallorca. Located at the University of Balearic Islands (UIB), the facility showcases our globally patented*Floating PhotoBioReactor* (PBR) technology for the low-cost production of algal biomass. *Algasol's UIB Showcase* The showcase serves to demonstrate our industry leading algae production platform, provide a training site for clients, and catalyze new development opportunities. *Platform Highlights:* - Low-cost design and materials - Industrial scalability - Optimal light exposure - Internal aeration system and CO2 distribution - Efficient temperature control - Nutrient intake and circulation - Integrated density management system - Sequential harvesting - Weather protection system We will be offering tours in the coming months. Please contact us at i...@algasolrenewables.com to schedule a visit. *About the Patented PBR Technology* Our award winning photobioreactor technology breaks the cost barrier and allows microalgae production to be economically viable in the present tense. On average, our technology lowers CAPEX by 90% when compared to other growth systems, and is deployable both on land (in ponds) and in the oceans - thanks to our unique density difference patent highlighted below. To give you an example, 1 ha (10,000m2) of Algasol PBRs is as low as USD 52,500, including harvesting valves and internal aeration. The main components of our worldwide patented technology include the following: - General concept of controlling the position of a closed photobioreactor byproviding a *density difference* between the algae culture inside the photobioreactor and the surrounding water - Density Management System for submerging/angling the PBR - Internal Aeration System For more detail, our worldwide patent is accessible at www.wipo.int http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDxfDNv6ouTSVYCq0K6pLKjQ_iUjTUOurYu0wVIREKxF5JOMDViyIQ_Mmuwv4Q90adUPvOBwn05P6ovaJxb_Pqg5mlIxkrdaB1B_vlAmZFqSyBw9BL04G4Ud4r78lhLXmy5N8Td4N1kc2eoei9YHwRl3XKiku8mMBOxN1y2GJk8mIpoaMzcgzvKwnK7xp0J9_BGxG7Gy5Xx8Un1UNmoLhQmdazT7bmNB38Jye5b6ovtMk=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== *About UIB Partnership* The University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) is an environment designed to educate, generate knowledge, and innovate. The UIB is one of the country's leading universities in teaching, research, international cooperation and technological development and innovation. It is a university committed to building the European Union, and an institution that aspires to become a motor of economic growth and wellbeing for the people. You may learn more about the UIB at: www.uib.eu/ http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDYAK06HBmP_is2eZM0gvgJRWpwYLqkIGZoNRrrgOAnr-nYcqp7zyQyumctAR5Wr-0xFDPp41pPflP6H1hCBUCeDcKMDKVjwiNFfVbM1qnKrXtXeAoj5ECfjBbwAgal4ytUY9zVrGOEHKu51vmZq8vtgOv2OetFiVjPMCXQIzd50BU8hMPpw_sPkMVM-mP3Lj0i7KiNGbvaACxGJhTcEG-U-FYGK8npNS9c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== Visit Algasol's webpage http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDrGxlmGMFJ9VSKT77SHKeKMsmGsc4i1JyDdyz26y961TywZwcquV-Yo65HyQXwbTNvnJLCm5vM84uWaM_CZn8_Is4AD_4aBUdApmpBBWBKhxU1Sf5cZJMASY1z-S-LjaSa0FDZTBSvzGrw3O0p9JhcNVXePCGOMkBeapE_iEA5nr4JOHKtaBucxue8oDfXupXlONN8jHji0Ho-WnUyxsYwJsIPDgyc4sDtsPdN9rMIvo=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== for additional news and updates. For more detail, our worldwide patent is accessible at www.wipo.int http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDxfDNv6ouTSVYCq0K6pLKjQ_iUjTUOurYu0wVIREKxF5JOMDViyIQ_Mmuwv4Q90adUPvOBwn05P6ovaJxb_Pqg5mlIxkrdaB1B_vlAmZFqSyBw9BL04G4Ud4r78lhLXmy5N8Td4N1kc2eoei9YHwRl3XKiku8mMBOxN1y2GJk8mIpoaMzcgzvKwnK7xp0J9_BGxG7Gy5Xx8Un1UNmoLhQmdazT7bmNB38Jye5b6ovtMk=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== Please direct queries to i...@algasolrenewables.com *Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements* Certain
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Jed-- I think your reliance on experts is a little over stated, and I tend to agree with Dave’s assessment of expecting short term predictions to be possible. Many so-called experts in the nuclear industry endorsed the idea of storing spent fuel in wet storage at locations subject to both earth quakes and tidal waves. Look what happened in Japan. I can think of many other conclusions of experts in various technical fields where their conclusions have been shown to be wrong. The prediction of practical hot fusion is one we are all aware of. I find it particularly troubling that so called experts disagree on key models associated with the same event being considered. It does not give me much faith in any expert in the field of global warming. Time is a key input to most if not all global warming modeling. Some of the models are more empirical than others. The ones that are based on constitutive models in such a complex situation are more suspect in my reasoning than those that are empirical. If short term predictions are not consistent with the empirical model, that implies some key parameters are not being considered in the empirical models. This supports Dave’s and my consideration that some experts are not too expert in global warming. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Weather forecast is virtually perfect for the next hour at most locations but hopeless in predicting what will happen in a week. I view the global warming modeling process in a similar manner. As I pointed out, and as countless climate experts have pointed out, you have no justification for this view of yours. Long term climate prediction and near term weather prediction are related in some ways, but they are VERY DIFFERENT in important ways. That is what the experts say. They give compelling reasons. You are ignoring their reasons. You resemble a self-appointed expert on Wikipedia writing bogus reasons not to believe tritium measurements in cold fusion. Your demand is irrational. It is, as I said, like demanding that an epidemiologist or a life insurance expert tell you the year and month that you yourself will die from disease. Just because we can predict these things for large groups of people that does not give us the ability to predict it for individuals. The ability to make long term predictions of the climate is an entirely different science from weather prediction. One cannot be held to the standards of the other. So, how are we as a society supposed to evaluate the output of the global warming scientists? It makes perfect sense to expect them to be able to demonstrate correlation between their predictions and what actually happens a few years into the future. Says who? Where did you get that information? Who told you that climatology should work a few years in the future? Do you also make claims about the timescale of theories and models in chemistry in physics that you have not studied? Are you going to say that a calorimeter with a 1-hour timescale should work equally well measuring a heat burst lasting 10 milliseconds? If they do not make predictions a few years into the future, they probably have good reasons. Unless you know a great deal about their work, and you have evaluated their reasons, you have no business second guessing them or making demands. People should never assume they know more than experts! That has been the whole problem with cold fusion from day one. People think they know more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann. You sound like the people who tell me that if cold fusion is real, we should have cold fusion powered automobiles by now. They have no idea what the problems are, or what the limitations of the science are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Chris- Your considerations are much the same as mine. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Chris Zell Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of the opinions of climatologists are simply worthless in relation to the world at large - except for their ability to make accurate predictions. Really, of what general value would climatology be without an established record of prediction? It would come painfully close to being a pseudo-science. This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's where the problem seems to be.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
~10.8 F? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking. Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail From: CB Sites Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking. Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide circulation. I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing. Do you think these are all errors? I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it? If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err is human. I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a few I found. You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge whether you have found it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Algasol Photobioreactor Showcase
Congrats - you must have been funded. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:17 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: For technical details of the photobioreactor and its economics see the see Algasol's presentation at the 2013 European Algal Biomass Conference https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf . Algasol Renewables pr...@algasolrenewables.com via http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail auth.ccsend.com 12:04 PM (7 minutes ago) to jb [image: PNG logo] Greetings! In order to best serve our current and future clients, Algasol is pleased to announce the opening of our algae growth facility on the island of Mallorca. Located at the University of Balearic Islands (UIB), the facility showcases our globally patented*Floating PhotoBioReactor* (PBR) technology for the low-cost production of algal biomass. *Algasol's UIB Showcase* The showcase serves to demonstrate our industry leading algae production platform, provide a training site for clients, and catalyze new development opportunities. *Platform Highlights:* - Low-cost design and materials - Industrial scalability - Optimal light exposure - Internal aeration system and CO2 distribution - Efficient temperature control - Nutrient intake and circulation - Integrated density management system - Sequential harvesting - Weather protection system We will be offering tours in the coming months. Please contact us at i...@algasolrenewables.com to schedule a visit. *About the Patented PBR Technology* Our award winning photobioreactor technology breaks the cost barrier and allows microalgae production to be economically viable in the present tense. On average, our technology lowers CAPEX by 90% when compared to other growth systems, and is deployable both on land (in ponds) and in the oceans - thanks to our unique density difference patent highlighted below. To give you an example, 1 ha (10,000m2) of Algasol PBRs is as low as USD 52,500, including harvesting valves and internal aeration. The main components of our worldwide patented technology include the following: - General concept of controlling the position of a closed photobioreactor byproviding a *density difference* between the algae culture inside the photobioreactor and the surrounding water - Density Management System for submerging/angling the PBR - Internal Aeration System For more detail, our worldwide patent is accessible at www.wipo.int http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDxfDNv6ouTSVYCq0K6pLKjQ_iUjTUOurYu0wVIREKxF5JOMDViyIQ_Mmuwv4Q90adUPvOBwn05P6ovaJxb_Pqg5mlIxkrdaB1B_vlAmZFqSyBw9BL04G4Ud4r78lhLXmy5N8Td4N1kc2eoei9YHwRl3XKiku8mMBOxN1y2GJk8mIpoaMzcgzvKwnK7xp0J9_BGxG7Gy5Xx8Un1UNmoLhQmdazT7bmNB38Jye5b6ovtMk=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== *About UIB Partnership* The University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) is an environment designed to educate, generate knowledge, and innovate. The UIB is one of the country's leading universities in teaching, research, international cooperation and technological development and innovation. It is a university committed to building the European Union, and an institution that aspires to become a motor of economic growth and wellbeing for the people. You may learn more about the UIB at: www.uib.eu/ http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDYAK06HBmP_is2eZM0gvgJRWpwYLqkIGZoNRrrgOAnr-nYcqp7zyQyumctAR5Wr-0xFDPp41pPflP6H1hCBUCeDcKMDKVjwiNFfVbM1qnKrXtXeAoj5ECfjBbwAgal4ytUY9zVrGOEHKu51vmZq8vtgOv2OetFiVjPMCXQIzd50BU8hMPpw_sPkMVM-mP3Lj0i7KiNGbvaACxGJhTcEG-U-FYGK8npNS9c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== Visit Algasol's webpage http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDrGxlmGMFJ9VSKT77SHKeKMsmGsc4i1JyDdyz26y961TywZwcquV-Yo65HyQXwbTNvnJLCm5vM84uWaM_CZn8_Is4AD_4aBUdApmpBBWBKhxU1Sf5cZJMASY1z-S-LjaSa0FDZTBSvzGrw3O0p9JhcNVXePCGOMkBeapE_iEA5nr4JOHKtaBucxue8oDfXupXlONN8jHji0Ho-WnUyxsYwJsIPDgyc4sDtsPdN9rMIvo=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== for additional news and updates. For more detail, our worldwide patent is accessible at www.wipo.int
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
I wrote: Do you think these are all errors? I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have spent decades working with these instruments and yet they make mistakes as obvious as the ones you describe. This resembles the notion that Martin Fleischmann never heard of recombination. Experts simply do not make the kind of idiotic errors you describe here. If you think you have discovered such errors, I am certain you are mistaken and you suffer from hubris. No amateur can page through the literature in a short time -- as you claimed you have done -- to find that many obvious mistakes. I suppose that list came from some misinformed amateur. I have seen many similar lists regarding cold fusion in places like Wikipedia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: ...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies. I asked specifically for a reference to the piece of leather from a shoe made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago. That seemed remarkable as it is very difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination could explain it. But having also searched in vain for such a report myself, I guess it was just a YEC circulated legend after all, with no truth to it. 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-63 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 ... As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem to be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on by YECs and circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost identical list here: http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm) However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be bothered to look for them. For instance the living shells dated as old are discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old And the freshly killed seal is discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old But I think you don't want evidence. You would much rather stir up as much mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too hard to see any pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever and the whole field should be tossed out as just so much crap. But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will not fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years fall within a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the wiggly line http://www.suigetsu.org/embed.php?File=radiocarbon.html - which on average decays exactly as predicted. Even the wiggles in the line (which are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at those ancient dates) can be matched between widely varying deposits of very different types and in very distant locations. As I now understand it the starting C14 concentration is known to the exact year. There are multiple complete and independent sequences (ie from Ireland and Germany) of tree rings that can be counted back 11,000 years and that are mutually consistent. Counting varves and measuring the radiocarbon concentration of the organic sediment layers in Lake Suigetsu have allowed the starting C14 concentration to be calibrated back to more than 50,000 years (again exact to the year as I understand it). And there is no indication of unusual deposits or gaps around the time of Noah! In this regard maybe you would like to explain the GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers that you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2D1837_crop.jpg. Every indication (by counting annual layers) is that this ice formed ~16250 years ago - again with no evidence of disturbance or melting in a flood. Other ice core data http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/ extend this evidence back to ~800,000 years without a significant break. How can you reduce this stretch of data by a factor of ~200? Do you think they could have had 200 blizzards per year for 4000 years to make it look like 800,000 seasonal layers had formed in only 4000 years? Next! Something you wrote here https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg75002.html that didn't really make sense at the time: ... you have a problem because it says in one place that Moses wrote the tablets and then it says in another place that God wrote the tablets. ... you are quibbling about the exact person who had the pen in his hand (or chisel) The problem is that in Exod 34:27-28 it clearly says that Moses did the chiselling, whereas in Deut 10:4 it says that God did the chiselling and _gave the tablets back_ to Moses. If as you asserted Moses really did the chiselling but God was writing - in that he was the author - why would God need to _give the tablets back_ to Moses? Maybe God couldn't see that well and so had Moses hand them up to him so that He could take a closer look to check for mistakes before handing them back?
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Calling out some of the people involved in climate science who have fudged numbers as representative of all of them feels a bit disingenuous to me. Because some were guilty of doing this does not impugn the entire lot. There's no reason to assume that the majority of climate scientists are acting with anything but integrity, just as there's no reason to assume that the majority of electrical engineers are acting with anything but integrity. (The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for politicians.)
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times. Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before commenting. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating There are plenty of correlations that have emerged in relation to C-14 dating, tree rings, astronomical events, Egyptian history just to name a few. In addition, the variations in C-14 formation have been fleshed out over the years. I think many creationists are using old data and arguments.
Re: [Vo]:Algasol Photobioreactor Showcase
The showcase is not the production line. People are still starving and species are still being driven to extinction for no reason. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Congrats - you must have been funded. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:17 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: For technical details of the photobioreactor and its economics see the see Algasol's presentation at the 2013 European Algal Biomass Conference https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf . Algasol Renewables pr...@algasolrenewables.com via http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail auth.ccsend.com 12:04 PM (7 minutes ago) to jb [image: PNG logo] Greetings! In order to best serve our current and future clients, Algasol is pleased to announce the opening of our algae growth facility on the island of Mallorca. Located at the University of Balearic Islands (UIB), the facility showcases our globally patented*Floating PhotoBioReactor* (PBR) technology for the low-cost production of algal biomass. *Algasol's UIB Showcase* The showcase serves to demonstrate our industry leading algae production platform, provide a training site for clients, and catalyze new development opportunities. *Platform Highlights:* - Low-cost design and materials - Industrial scalability - Optimal light exposure - Internal aeration system and CO2 distribution - Efficient temperature control - Nutrient intake and circulation - Integrated density management system - Sequential harvesting - Weather protection system We will be offering tours in the coming months. Please contact us at i...@algasolrenewables.com to schedule a visit. *About the Patented PBR Technology* Our award winning photobioreactor technology breaks the cost barrier and allows microalgae production to be economically viable in the present tense. On average, our technology lowers CAPEX by 90% when compared to other growth systems, and is deployable both on land (in ponds) and in the oceans - thanks to our unique density difference patent highlighted below. To give you an example, 1 ha (10,000m2) of Algasol PBRs is as low as USD 52,500, including harvesting valves and internal aeration. The main components of our worldwide patented technology include the following: - General concept of controlling the position of a closed photobioreactor byproviding a *density difference* between the algae culture inside the photobioreactor and the surrounding water - Density Management System for submerging/angling the PBR - Internal Aeration System For more detail, our worldwide patent is accessible at www.wipo.int http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDxfDNv6ouTSVYCq0K6pLKjQ_iUjTUOurYu0wVIREKxF5JOMDViyIQ_Mmuwv4Q90adUPvOBwn05P6ovaJxb_Pqg5mlIxkrdaB1B_vlAmZFqSyBw9BL04G4Ud4r78lhLXmy5N8Td4N1kc2eoei9YHwRl3XKiku8mMBOxN1y2GJk8mIpoaMzcgzvKwnK7xp0J9_BGxG7Gy5Xx8Un1UNmoLhQmdazT7bmNB38Jye5b6ovtMk=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== *About UIB Partnership* The University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) is an environment designed to educate, generate knowledge, and innovate. The UIB is one of the country's leading universities in teaching, research, international cooperation and technological development and innovation. It is a university committed to building the European Union, and an institution that aspires to become a motor of economic growth and wellbeing for the people. You may learn more about the UIB at: www.uib.eu/ http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDYAK06HBmP_is2eZM0gvgJRWpwYLqkIGZoNRrrgOAnr-nYcqp7zyQyumctAR5Wr-0xFDPp41pPflP6H1hCBUCeDcKMDKVjwiNFfVbM1qnKrXtXeAoj5ECfjBbwAgal4ytUY9zVrGOEHKu51vmZq8vtgOv2OetFiVjPMCXQIzd50BU8hMPpw_sPkMVM-mP3Lj0i7KiNGbvaACxGJhTcEG-U-FYGK8npNS9c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ== Visit Algasol's webpage http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001xLeelTYVf1tgw7tk72LbW7zqRP4E4NT5NbuxOlKKcKj5HUXwR-EFe2Bo1D65JaaDrGxlmGMFJ9VSKT77SHKeKMsmGsc4i1JyDdyz26y961TywZwcquV-Yo65HyQXwbTNvnJLCm5vM84uWaM_CZn8_Is4AD_4aBUdApmpBBWBKhxU1Sf5cZJMASY1z-S-LjaSa0FDZTBSvzGrw3O0p9JhcNVXePCGOMkBeapE_iEA5nr4JOHKtaBucxue8oDfXupXlONN8jHji0Ho-WnUyxsYwJsIPDgyc4sDtsPdN9rMIvo=c=VdjDrLfROznvERHIi2gjTOskjutEFtTAUXe54Lyw3DOP5HVKO00DzQ==ch=V2dHmYAjpeMSEGic00lESSDz17OYYkAtGAUP4nTzT71Gt-hiWq_-WQ==
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Cold fusion has been replicated more than 14,700 times http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg87609.html On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question your ability to make science. 2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Is it because it is repeatable? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant Date: November 28, 2007 Source: Texas AM University Summary: Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
That must be one smart monkey. Maybe he and the millions of others banging on typewriters right now in another thought experiment will find the dark energy that's missing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
[Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. Oh, yes, I know they'll deny it when I put it that way but when it comes to public policy the gaping black-hole of avoiding being cast as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews creates an intellectual dead-zone around anything resembling rational thought about the biology, let alone biodiversity, of human behavior. As a consequence, educated young people end up being put into de facto sterilizing urban environments where considering the evolutionary consequences of their own evolutionary demise is worthy only of anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. This de facto genocide of cultures that allow their young people to be educated has a very predictable _evolutionary_ consequence: The next generation will be comprised of people who managed to avoid being educated. Hell, they'll believe that underground gerbies are secretly pulling levers on a grand clockwork mechanism that was designed by ancient engineers from the planet zebulack if that's what it takes to avoid being educated into extinction. Get real: Fix your own intellectual house before you start trying to treat symptoms of your genocide against the intelligent and educated.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it? Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey? Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95% leaves a lot left to figure out. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant Date: November 28, 2007 Source: Texas AM University Summary: Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Yes. Please send my Nobel Prize by mail. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it? Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey? Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95% leaves a lot left to figure out. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant Date: November 28, 2007 Source: Texas AM University Summary: Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Email? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Please send my Nobel Prize by mail. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it? Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey? Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95% leaves a lot left to figure out. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant Date: November 28, 2007 Source: Texas AM University Summary: Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
James B. I hope I understand what you are saying. There are biological reasons for our behavior and it is hard to replace them with some cultural etiquette. If that is what you said then I agree with you. I also believe this kind of believe is accentuated by our school system and our most influential organizations. That is a problem as if you base your behavior on facts not experienced. It is like building a house on sand. I think it is to be avoided already in biblical time. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. Oh, yes, I know they'll deny it when I put it that way but when it comes to public policy the gaping black-hole of avoiding being cast as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews creates an intellectual dead-zone around anything resembling rational thought about the biology, let alone biodiversity, of human behavior. As a consequence, educated young people end up being put into de facto sterilizing urban environments where considering the evolutionary consequences of their own evolutionary demise is worthy only of anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. This de facto genocide of cultures that allow their young people to be educated has a very predictable _evolutionary_ consequence: The next generation will be comprised of people who managed to avoid being educated. Hell, they'll believe that underground gerbies are secretly pulling levers on a grand clockwork mechanism that was designed by ancient engineers from the planet zebulack if that's what it takes to avoid being educated into extinction. Get real: Fix your own intellectual house before you start trying to treat symptoms of your genocide against the intelligent and educated.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. I have no idea who or what your are talking about here, and I suspect you do not know either. FYI, biologists (not evolutionists) say that: 1. Humans are not unique among life forms. They resemble other primates and other intelligent species. 2. All behavior is caused by biology, and all biology is rooted in evolution. That is the opposite of what you said. In essence, all human behavior along with every aspect of physiology is the product of evolution. 3. Some human behavior is learned, or cultural. This is also true of other primates, and other intelligent species, such as wolves, crows, and other birds. This is why, for example, there are regional variations in crow calls. (An expert on crows can detect where an audio recording was made by the sounds of crows in the background. This has been done in police investigations, as I recall.) This is no contradiction with item 2. It means evolution has created a mechanism in many animals that allows them to mimic and learn behavior from other members of their species, and to take advantage of changes in the environment by devising new behaviors, and new uses of tools. Many species use tools of various types, such as seagulls dropping shells on rocks to break them open. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
You obviously weren't around Harvard when Gould and Lewontin went on their rampage against Wilson over sociobiology. You're out of touch with the facts on the ground in academia with regards to the social sciences. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. I have no idea who or what your are talking about here, and I suspect you do not know either. FYI, biologists (not evolutionists) say that: 1. Humans are not unique among life forms. They resemble other primates and other intelligent species. 2. All behavior is caused by biology, and all biology is rooted in evolution. That is the opposite of what you said. In essence, all human behavior along with every aspect of physiology is the product of evolution. 3. Some human behavior is learned, or cultural. This is also true of other primates, and other intelligent species, such as wolves, crows, and other birds. This is why, for example, there are regional variations in crow calls. (An expert on crows can detect where an audio recording was made by the sounds of crows in the background. This has been done in police investigations, as I recall.) This is no contradiction with item 2. It means evolution has created a mechanism in many animals that allows them to mimic and learn behavior from other members of their species, and to take advantage of changes in the environment by devising new behaviors, and new uses of tools. Many species use tools of various types, such as seagulls dropping shells on rocks to break them open. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Good enough. Now if I could just get a few million others to accept that I just won a Nobel Prize, life would be golden. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Email? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Please send my Nobel Prize by mail. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it? Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey? Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95% leaves a lot left to figure out. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant Date: November 28, 2007 Source: Texas AM University Summary: Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
it is also unbelievable that educated people repeat the consesus fairy tale against cold fusion, despite huge evidences agains, and no valid refutation to support their cause... anyway they did because they were the consenus, because opposing mean you were the blacksheep of the lab, ... note also that many climate skeptics use bad arguments... we should only consider the serious arguments, like those pushed by judith curry and alike... she even worked for IPCC and realizsed she was hiding data to defend the cause.climategate and wwhat she read as an insider make her understand that what she did was the rule and not a local trick. some say she is a lukewarmer serious skeptics agree on some warming, but question the cause, because it have been warming since much longer tha global warming and pausing few times without credible information. the exgaggeration, the public myth are recognized even by IPCC and orthodox even chlarate fear is extremeliy improbable, as extreme weather is not caused by AGW... model are recoignized as not working, sung is getting recognized, climate sensibility start to be lowered note also that experts are useful and often competent, but they can fall in groupthink as a whole profession. see the alexander gordon de aberdee, semmeweils, then pasteur tragedy... in each time the theory was broke, data were ignored, and the solution came from people out of the domain, but competent wor unexpected reason. clmim 2014-08-25 20:19 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I wrote: Do you think these are all errors? I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have spent decades working with these instruments and yet they make mistakes as obvious as the ones you describe. This resembles the notion that Martin Fleischmann never heard of recombination. Experts simply do not make the kind of idiotic errors you describe here. If you think you have discovered such errors, I am certain you are mistaken and you suffer from hubris. No amateur can page through the literature in a short time -- as you claimed you have done -- to find that many obvious mistakes. I suppose that list came from some misinformed amateur. I have seen many similar lists regarding cold fusion in places like Wikipedia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
Awwwh. :( On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Thanks for identifying yourself my friend. I already forgot who it was that challenged me and I wasn't inclined to waste my time searching the archives. You asked for proof of my assertion that radionucleotide dating is unreliable, and I provided several actual egregious examples from reputable researchers published in reputable peer-reviewed publications. And yet, your response is: These are all outliers and errors and legends. My friend, You are only willing to accept results that seem right to you. Any other result is an outlier, and error and incompetence automatically. You claim that they are legends with no truth to it, yet they are published in publications that you respect. The problem with your version of science is that you want to have the right to decide which experimental result is valid. Any result you don't like is a mistake, an instrument error or legend. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness. Of course these results are well known, and published in creationist web sites and elsewhere. Why? Because they show the truth that people like you would rather bury as an error, outlier or legend, so that you can promote your own twisted theories and beliefs. Your rebutal to my #1 and #2 items seems to illustrate very well my oriignal point. These two links claim that there are other processes that could skew the result. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old Which is precisely my point. The technique depends on many assumptions many of which we do not fully understand. Hence, results are unreliable. My friend, you can discuss all you want till you turn blue, all the wiggly lines, all the calibration reports, the tree lines, all the expert opinions, etc etc but if you can not explain how these egregious results come about from a technique you deem reliable, your argument rings hollow. Your only other option is to claim error, outlier and/or incompetence, which is precisely what you and a couple of other folks like Jed is claiming. You don't like the result, it must be an error, an outlier. How convenient. Regarding what Moses wrote, if you want to discuss religion, start a new thread. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: ...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies. I asked specifically for a reference to the piece of leather from a shoe made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago. That seemed remarkable as it is very difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination could explain it. But having also searched in vain for such a report myself, I guess it was just a YEC circulated legend after all, with no truth to it. 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-63 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 ... As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem to be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on by YECs and circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost identical list here: http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm) However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be bothered to look for them. For instance the living shells dated as old are discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old And the freshly killed seal is discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old But I think you don't want evidence. You would much rather stir up as much mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too hard to see any pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever and the whole field should be tossed out as just so much crap. But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will not fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years fall within a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the wiggly line - which on average decays exactly as predicted. Even the wiggles in the line (which are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at those ancient dates) can be matched between widely varying deposits of very different types and in very distant locations. As I now
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Bob, please read the context in which this number came up? CB was talking about the increase which he claims would bring the global average to 42.8F, which I point out he probably meant 42.8C Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail From: CB Sites Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking. Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last time I checked, Science is and was a reputable publication. You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,. Now, you are saying you wouldn't know. If you don't know, how can you say they were instrument errors. How do you know they were imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. What qualifies you to make an assertion like that? Were you there? You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide circulation. I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing. Do you think these are all errors? I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it? If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err is human. I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a few I found. You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge whether you have found it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much problems convincing the rest of the world. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times. Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before commenting. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Since google. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking. Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high standard as is required of most other endeavors. You
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Like Jed says, Please stop making ignorant assertions. At least this is an interesting ignorant assertion. The problem with Cold Fusion acceptance in scientific circles is not due to problems getting results replicated. It is due to PAST stigma attached to the field of inquiry and current skeptopathic activity until this generation of scientists dies off. *A new scientific http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Scientific truth http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventually die http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ~Max Planck * On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much problems convincing the rest of the world. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times. Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before commenting. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
[Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
[Vo]:Near Death Experiences
The article does not really explain the phenomena of NDE, but it does provide an interesting synopsis of what is known about the experience. Harry Near death, explained New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences -- with shocking results. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Opps, my bad, I'm too quick to use google. Delta 10.8 Degree F is correct. Where was my brain? Duhh. Embarrassing, but thank you for correcting me. Still that is a major change and would effect many many different eco systems, and AGW effects already have upset several. 10.8 is an average across the globe, and completely ignores weather. One of the main aspects of global warming is how much energy it puts into the atmosphere, land and oceans. In the case of oceans, much is put into the evaporation of water, which puts more humidity in the air, which is also a green house gas, that further adds more energy into the oceans. Cold fronts from the polar regions would cause the water vapor to condense and rain, but as the polar regions warm, that might not happen. Similarly a delta of 10.8F or 6C will release more methane gasses from melting permafrost or from thawing methane clathrate on the bottom of the ocean floor. Some people believe methane (CH4) is bigger threat than CO2. http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/methane-carbon-dioxide.php If that animal is released we really could be talking delta T's in the 42.8F range and worst. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Since google. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the
Re: [Vo]:Novel physics/chemistry?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:32:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] The novel part happens when the drop of metal turns black and then transparent and then explodes. Harry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIGMfai_ICg Invisible Metal (better than transparent Aluminium!) I don't think it is transparent metal. IMO, what you see at the end is a droplet of molten alkali-hydroxide momentarily suspended on a layer of Hydrogen and steam. Molten hydroxide should indeed be transparent. Note that it doesn't become transparent until the dark blue disappears, which happens when there are no more solvated electrons, and that doesn't happen until the last of the metal is gone. Furthermore, while metal exists, heat is being generated to maintain the steam layer, once it's gone, the steam layer vanishes and the droplet makes contact with the water. Alkali-hydroxides dissolve in water quite nicely, particularly when hot, which is what causes the explosion at the end. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html The narrator of the video says if the drop is alkali-hydroxide it should sink because according to him alkali-hydroxide is denser than water. Are you arguing that the drop is indeed alkali-hydroxide but it is kept afloat by riding a cushion steam like a hovercraft rides a cushion of air? Harry
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
CO2 levels were 5 times higher during Jurassic than today, 3 C higher http://www.livescience.com/44330-Jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change... Avg temps Jurassic vs. today 3C higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic Mean atmospheric O 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen content over period duration ca. 26 Vol %[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-1 (130 % of modern level) Mean atmospheric CO 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide content over period duration ca. 1950 ppm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_per_million[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-2 (7 times pre-industrial level) Mean surface temperature over period duration ca. 16.5 °C[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-3 (3 °C above modern level) I say fire up the gas turbines distributed PV until something better comes along On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Opps, my bad, I'm too quick to use google. Delta 10.8 Degree F is correct. Where was my brain? Duhh. Embarrassing, but thank you for correcting me. Still that is a major change and would effect many many different eco systems, and AGW effects already have upset several. 10.8 is an average across the globe, and completely ignores weather. One of the main aspects of global warming is how much energy it puts into the atmosphere, land and oceans. In the case of oceans, much is put into the evaporation of water, which puts more humidity in the air, which is also a green house gas, that further adds more energy into the oceans. Cold fronts from the polar regions would cause the water vapor to condense and rain, but as the polar regions warm, that might not happen. Similarly a delta of 10.8F or 6C will release more methane gasses from melting permafrost or from thawing methane clathrate on the bottom of the ocean floor. Some people believe methane (CH4) is bigger threat than CO2. http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/methane-carbon-dioxide.php If that animal is released we really could be talking delta T's in the 42.8F range and worst. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Since google. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Opps I meant C14. Here is the processes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels. In fact that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man made sources. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Also the great mass extinction we are in is not due to global warming, it is primarily billions of watts of pulsed electromagnetic radiation destroying natures health along with all the other pollution humans generate On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: CO2 levels were 5 times higher during Jurassic than today, 3 C higher http://www.livescience.com/44330-Jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change... Avg temps Jurassic vs. today 3C higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic Mean atmospheric O 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen content over period duration ca. 26 Vol %[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-1 (130 % of modern level) Mean atmospheric CO 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide content over period duration ca. 1950 ppm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_per_million[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-2 (7 times pre-industrial level) Mean surface temperature over period duration ca. 16.5 °C[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic#cite_note-3 (3 °C above modern level) I say fire up the gas turbines distributed PV until something better comes along On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Opps, my bad, I'm too quick to use google. Delta 10.8 Degree F is correct. Where was my brain? Duhh. Embarrassing, but thank you for correcting me. Still that is a major change and would effect many many different eco systems, and AGW effects already have upset several. 10.8 is an average across the globe, and completely ignores weather. One of the main aspects of global warming is how much energy it puts into the atmosphere, land and oceans. In the case of oceans, much is put into the evaporation of water, which puts more humidity in the air, which is also a green house gas, that further adds more energy into the oceans. Cold fronts from the polar regions would cause the water vapor to condense and rain, but as the polar regions warm, that might not happen. Similarly a delta of 10.8F or 6C will release more methane gasses from melting permafrost or from thawing methane clathrate on the bottom of the ocean floor. Some people believe methane (CH4) is bigger threat than CO2. http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/methane-carbon-dioxide.php If that animal is released we really could be talking delta T's in the 42.8F range and worst. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Since google. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail *From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Dear Jack, I would be interested in seeing what happens when some chlorine bleach is used instead of water. Chlorine produces a UV laser output when combined with hydrogen in an arc. Mills uses chlorine and so did Papp. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:Novel physics/chemistry?
In reply to H Veeder's message of Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:34:52 -0400: Hi Harry, Now actually *read* the message you replied to. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:32:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] The novel part happens when the drop of metal turns black and then transparent and then explodes. Harry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIGMfai_ICg Invisible Metal (better than transparent Aluminium!) I don't think it is transparent metal. IMO, what you see at the end is a droplet of molten alkali-hydroxide momentarily suspended on a layer of Hydrogen and steam. Molten hydroxide should indeed be transparent. Note that it doesn't become transparent until the dark blue disappears, which happens when there are no more solvated electrons, and that doesn't happen until the last of the metal is gone. Furthermore, while metal exists, heat is being generated to maintain the steam layer, once it's gone, the steam layer vanishes and the droplet makes contact with the water. Alkali-hydroxides dissolve in water quite nicely, particularly when hot, which is what causes the explosion at the end. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html The narrator of the video says if the drop is alkali-hydroxide it should sink because according to him alkali-hydroxide is denser than water. Are you arguing that the drop is indeed alkali-hydroxide but it is kept afloat by riding a cushion steam like a hovercraft rides a cushion of air? Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
From Jojo By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Butting in here... Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking process to complete. In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro evolution as starting with species :A and then ending up with species B. Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species A and species B as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted motion feature film showing the motion of evolution in constant change. This would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends. There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from species A to species B, particularly when it takes geological time to make the transformation blatantly obvious. OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate (original) sample of the initial organism, A ,then presumably after the experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice versa. For example, organism A can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees below, and organism B can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... something like that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt. What would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate scientists as a result? Perhaps there are some climate scientists here. For the climate scientists out there -- are you corrupt? If so, why have you not learned virtue and integrity from the engineers on this list? What is keeping you from leading an upright life? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Hi Axil, I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know if UV is emitted? Best, Jack On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jack, I would be interested in seeing what happens when some chlorine bleach is used instead of water. Chlorine produces a UV laser output when combined with hydrogen in an arc. Mills uses chlorine and so did Papp. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know if UV is emitted? Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
A UV light, say at 244 nm or 300 nm, can not be seen at all with a human eye. However if you put a piece of paper in its path the paper will glow blue. This happens because the UV excites blue dyes in the paper (the paper manufacturers put blue dyes in all papers to make them appear more 'white'). This also happens to your white shirts when you walk under a 'dark UV lamp' in a disco bar or in one of those stores that sell glow in the dark stuff. For more see http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blblacklight.htm On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Axil, I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know if UV is emitted? Best, Jack On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jack, I would be interested in seeing what happens when some chlorine bleach is used instead of water. Chlorine produces a UV laser output when combined with hydrogen in an arc. Mills uses chlorine and so did Papp. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I think all of us, including the universe are creating every day, evolving every day and dying a little each day. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
[Vo]:the article is full of LENR physics
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-confine-crystal-surface-transparent-nanoparticles.html This explains how heat can be converted into dipole motion, the source of LENR power as follows: Silver has conducting electrons, and when the particular blue wavelength interacts with them, those conducting electrons will oscillate back and forth strongly. It's a resonance phenomenon. At that point, you'll get very strong light scattering, Hsu explains. The phenomenon is called a localized surface plasmon resonance. In the case of the Ni/H reactor, heat is converted to vigorous dipole motion. I believe one possible way that gamma rays are converted to XUV may be through an embedded eigenstate
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the majority of climate scientists. I'm interested in seeing if there's real science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science. Maybe these scientists-with-an-agenda can put together a model that lasts longer than a decade before some unforeseen aspect throws off their precious theory, or they can curve fit without simply cheating. But I doubt it, based upon past performance. In that upcoming decade, LENR will hit, and hit hard. It's cleaner greener than fossil fuels, so it should make those enviroweenies feel good. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt. What would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate scientists as a result? Perhaps there are some climate scientists here. For the climate scientists out there -- are you corrupt? If so, why have you not learned virtue and integrity from the engineers on this list? What is keeping you from leading an upright life? Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's where the problem seems to be. Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with some specificity -- for example, no climate model has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term climate change. I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate science. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Good warning. Chlorine gas can do great damage to your lungs and even cause death. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know if UV is emitted? Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the majority of climate scientists. I'm interested in seeing if there's real science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science. Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that want to insure their crops. You should definitely warn these guys that they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're doing: https://www.climate.com/ Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their blockheadedness in acquiring them. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause in warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might last until 2025. Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be? Of course, with hindsight, they suggest that there is an, until now, unknown Atlantic current effect which explains the pause. How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct in their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track record? Are you confident that they now have all the correct variables under control? With the sort of error that has arisen, it is entirely possible that they have missed the boat completely and we might actually be heading into a cooling period. They do not merit a free pass like some seem to imply. Also, it does not take an advanced degree or the requirement that a skeptic be a climatologist to evaluate their work. Their model outputs are their contact to the public and decision makers and anyone can observe how poorly their predictions match the real world data. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:56 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's where the problem seems to be. Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with some specificity -- for example, no climate model has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term climate change. I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate science. Eric
