The Science & Skepticism Thread

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4255126/Chris-Huhne-works-wood-pellets-supplier-Zilkha-Biomass.html

It now seems that after Britain has spent £450m subsidising power stations in order to burn American wood pellets, they are worse for the environment than the coal they replaced. :mad:

OldCarlos said:
I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, as it always has & will continue to do, I'm just very sceptical about man's contribution to it & how much difference we can make in the future. My biggest annoyance though, is all the money we are being taxed, the limitations which will imposed on us all & the vast amounts of money big business are/will make out of it all.[/QUOTE]

OldCarlos said:
We ultimately pay for all the `green` issues.

The governments, rich landowners, energy suppliers, cap & trade, carbon trading....... The green parties etc. all have a vested interest in blaming us so they can make more profit or further their political agendas.
Click to expand...



Ricardodaforce said:
Your posts would have more credibility if you sourced the original published scientific data instead of tabloid rags. Linking to the Express and a 4 year story from The Daily Mail (of all places!) really doesn't help your cause. Start looking at New Scientist, Live Science, NASA etc.
Click to expand...

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/...dy-biomass-global-climate-brack-embargoed.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
Great video about the Twins Paradox.
Click to expand...
I know it's infra dig to point out such things but I'll lower myself to pointing out that, until we can build a ship which can accellerate to 85% of lightspeed while carrying a crew, this remains a speculation.

Just because a theory is accepted by a wide audience, doesn't make it fact.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
I know it's infra dig to point out such things but I'll lower myself to pointing out that, until we can build a ship which can accellerate to 85% of lightspeed while carrying a crew, this remains a speculation.

Just because a theory is accepted by a wide audience, doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Time dilation has to be factored into the Global Positioning System.
I know you won’t admit to being wrong, and hey, maybe you are smarter than Einstein.


Here are some sources for you:

Relativity in the Global Positioning System - PMC

The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

GPS and Relativity

www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu

New Page 1

www.aapt.org
 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
So, time dilation is not a theory, it’s a scientifically proven fact.
Click to expand...
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to disprove a theory by experimentation.

Just build that 85% of light speed spaceship, and you can do the experiment.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
So, time dilation is not a theory, it’s a scientifically proven fact.
Click to expand...
Under the A theory of time, under the B theory of time it all gets downright disturbing!
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm not going to let you turn this into a stupid squabble.

I'll just ignore you from now on.
Click to expand...

I have given you ample proof that time dilation was a proven thing. The Twins Paradox is a fun illustration of demonstrating it in a way that makes it easy for people to understand.
It was a theory. The experiments were done, many times to prove it as fact.
It cannot be argued any more.
Except by you.

I should have known better than engage with someone that has called me and others here an anti-Semite.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I know it's infra dig to point out such things but I'll lower myself to pointing out that, until we can build a ship which can accellerate to 85% of lightspeed while carrying a crew, this remains a speculation.

Just because a theory is accepted by a wide audience, doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...
It has been proven. They have put atomic clocks on airplanes travelling in different directions and the time difference compared to stationary clocks was exactly as predicted.

books.google.co.uk

New Scientist

New Scientist magazine was launched in 1956 "for all those men and women who are interested in scientific discovery, and in its industrial, commercial and social consequences". The brand's mission is no different today - for its consumers, New Scientist reports, explores and interprets the...
books.google.co.uk
 
Rapscallion said:
As you ignore proven science…
Click to expand...
Of course I do, because there's no such thing.

The scientific method is to observe, form a theory and attempt to disprove that theory. If the theory withstands experimentation, then it remains a valid theory, otherwise, the scientist forms a new theory based on the results of the experiment.

When a theory remains sufficiently unbroken, it may pass into the realm of engineering, of one form or another. All the jet experiment shows is that the theory has not been broken by that experiment. The twins paradox has not yet been tested because of the lack of engineering to perform a real experiment.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Of course I do, because there's no such thing.

The scientific method is to observe, form a theory and attempt to disprove that theory. If the theory withstands experimentation, then it remains a valid theory, otherwise, the scientist forms a new theory based on the results of the experiment.

When a theory remains sufficiently unbroken, it may pass into the realm of engineering, of one form or another. All the jet experiment shows is that the theory has not been broken by that experiment. The twins paradox has not yet been tested because of the lack of engineering to perform a real experiment.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Replace the word “twins” with “atomic clocks”.

phys.libretexts.org

1.2: Experimental Tests of the Nature of Time

In 1971, Hafele and Keating brought atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and went around the world, once from east to west and once from west to east. Hafele and Keating observed that there was …
phys.libretexts.org phys.libretexts.org


Your stubbornness is making you look silly.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Please refrain from personal insults. You'll just get the thread locked, which would be a pity.
Click to expand...

You should have considered that when you started calling people anti-Semitic here.

Besides, it wasn’t an insult, more of an observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
AndrewFlannigan said:
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to disprove a theory by experimentation.

Just build that 85% of light speed spaceship, and you can do the experiment.
Click to expand...
Time dilation as suggested by special relativity has been experimentally demonstrated at velocities obtainable with current technology levels.

The mathematics behind special relativity is understandable at A level maths and physics standards, at least it was in the mid 1980s when I learned it and I will assume that A level standards have not dropped in the intervening 35 years.

Of course the theory of special relativity may eventually be replaced by a better one, but the observed effect of time dilation won't go away because the theory changes.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Of course the theory of special relativity may eventually be replaced by a better one, but the observed effect of time dilation won't go away because the theory changes.
Click to expand...
It's possible that you're correct and the observations do show the theory stands up in the circumstances given.

But consider this: the observation may be due to other causes than the one suggested by Einstein and may not be observed outside of a relatively strong gravitational field or at near light speed velocities. It really is wrong to assume that because a is observed, b is true, where a and b are markedly different predictions.

In any case, the use of the word "fact" is always suspect in science because observations are only true for the exact circumstances under which they are made. Different circumstances may provide different observations, which is an important source of knowledge, in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Of course I do, because there's no such thing.

The scientific method is to observe, form a theory and attempt to disprove that theory. If the theory withstands experimentation, then it remains a valid theory, otherwise, the scientist forms a new theory based on the results of the experiment.

When a theory remains sufficiently unbroken, it may pass into the realm of engineering, of one form or another. All the jet experiment shows is that the theory has not been broken by that experiment. The twins paradox has not yet been tested because of the lack of engineering to perform a real experiment.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Nobel laureate Theodor Hänsch, director of the Max Planck optics institute, would be interested in your comments as to why he failed to verify Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction.
Here’s his email address at the Max Planck Institute: t.w.haensch@mpq.mpg.de

I would love to see your critique!
 
Rapscallion said:
I’m sure Nobel laureate Theodor Hänsch, director of the Max Planck optics institute, would be interested in your comments as to why he failed to verify Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction.
Here’s his email address at the Max Planck Institute: t.w.haensch@mpq.mpg.de

I would love to see your critique!
Click to expand...
It's a great shame that you failed to heed Dale's sensible instruction. I've put you on ignore.
 
Amazing that somebody seriously believes they know more about physics than a Nobel Laureate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top