Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:29 pm
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
In school I had to choose between the money and the physics. I took the money and have had a career in electronics engineering and software engineering. Physics, though, was always my first love. I have big bookshelves. The best ones, like The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Cosmic Landscape and Relativity and The Force of Symmetry are old friends that I have to replace every so often because I refer to them so much they fall apart.rj40 wrote:Schneibster,
What is your background? Theoretical physics? What do you do for a living? Just curious.
Here is the first I've heard of it under that name; I saw a mention of it on another forum here. I'll look it over and tell you.rj40 wrote:What do you think about James Woodward and this Mach Effect for propulsion that folks have been talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
I hope it is real, it can be scaled up, and a working engine can be made. I still need to get the book.Schneibster wrote:Looked through the Wikipedia article, it sounds credible if the effect actually exists.
The underlying principle is much more subtle: suppose you were the only thing that existed in a universe. If you spun, how would you know?
OK, so would you feel angular acceleration? Why? How can you tell you're moving at all?
You can go on from there to questions about translational movement.
One question: where does the heat from expanding and contracting the transducer get dumped? Because that heat has to come from somewhere, otherwise this is perpetual motion. TANSTAAFL aka 1LOT aka mass-energy conservation.
On edit: also, Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is the basis of Jack Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM. Cramer proposed using the LIGO tunnels to string fiber optics and test Marlan Scully's Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment to see if we can "catch" WFAT "telling" the other half of the quantum pair how to behave superluminally. Whether he actually followed up or not I don't know; that's about the time the deniers took over the Internet and started kicking anyone who actually knew anything off.
"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified."
Stubby wrote:14000 to 26
(yes i know it is not a ratio of people but of papers)
Still pretty long odds that his interpretation of the data is more correct than the hundreds (or is it thousands) of similarly qualified scientists who think he is wrong.
At what ratio would of pro/con would you folks need in order to entertain the possibility that climate change/global warming is happening?
140 000 to 26?
1 400 000 to 26?
14 000 000 to 26?
any higher than that and you might as well start believing in Rossi ffs.
His last job was testifying for the tobacco companies that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Gee, so he's a climate scientist, hmm? What's he doing testifying about tobacco then?MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen
You're making a logical error: you're claiming there are no experts. Claiming the votes of experts in a field are equivalent to the votes of the generally informed is a logical fallacy; if you want to claim the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html Appeal to Authority, you have to be prepared to prove it's false authority. And you're not. Here's why:Diogenes wrote:No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me.
I could never make sense of geology until I had a lot of math; my childhood encounters with it were therefore less than captivating. I liked electronics and telescopes a lot more. My parents got me all of them so I had the chance to decide what I liked, and then encouraged me to explore whatever I found captivating.rj40 wrote:My background is geology. Ended up making maps and have now clawed my way to middle management. Subcontracted to oil companies and even the Govt. in the past. Still having fun.
The basic two ideas you need to know in order to understand it are the CKM and PMNS matrices. These mathematical artifacts are the ones that define how all the higher-energy matter particles decay into lower-, and eventually lowest-energy particles, like up and down quarks in the CKM matrix, and electrons and electron-neutrinos in the PMNS matrix.rj40 wrote:Yes, saw some stuff on the amplituhedron. Sounds like it might be significant. But I don't understand how. I read that it might be useful in making equations that simplify all sorts of physics calculations. I will review the link.
Basically this shows that what remains is refinements of the Standard Model, not overturnings of it. At a sigma greater than five it's pretty much certain at this point. If there are particles creating dark mass, they do not have half-integer spins.rj40 wrote:Have not heard of the elemental fermion findings. I don't know what it could mean.
Sixteen sigma last I heard. This is about as certain as gravity.rj40 wrote:Ah, Bell's theore. I am not qualified to have an opinion. But if they are reproducible, I would think that is significant. Are the experimental results pretty clear, or sort of on the edge?
Actually, it's more a matter of another dimension, but in fact defining that dimension defines a multiverse/metaverse/überverse "right next to" ours. Sorta. You're not wrong, just insufficiently descriptive.rj40 wrote:My favorite theory of dark matter - I don't have a clue. But a fun one I have read about is that it is an effect of our universe interacting with another universe. That would neat. And potentially informative.