Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).

In order for what you say to be correct, then the "enclosing shell" you refer to is not the heated plate enclosing the source. Which would mean you were talking about a completely different experiment, not even the one Spencer mentioned with the heated plate enclosing the source. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-31]

We might be talking past each other. What you're calling the "source" is what I've been calling the "heated plate" with temperature "T_h" in all my equations. I've called the other enclosing plate the "cold plate" with temperature "T_c". As I've repeatedly and consistently stressed, "T_c" is only identical on both sides of the enclosing cold plate if it's a thermal superconductor.

I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, but as you can tell I really am talking about the experiment Dr. Spencer mentioned. We're just using different words, and again I'm sorry for not noticing this miscommunication earlier. I take full responsibility.

... But your hypothetical thermal superconductor could not store heat like a black body and remain a superconductor. That's a contradiction. So it's a different creature, from your imagination. This is why I say: leave it out. There is no way you can try to demonstrate anything else with it, either, without leading to a contradiction. And it's not part of the original experiment anyway; it's nothing but misdirection. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-31]

We'll have to agree to disagree about thermal superconductors. I'm sorry for trying to simplify the problem in a way that ultimately just caused us to waste so much time. Again, I take full responsibility.

But again, I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell, and it also warms the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") to ~233.8F.

... I'm not interested. Original experiment. Latour's treatment of it. Show where he was wrong. Period. Stop prevaricating. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-31]

That was Dr. Spencer's original challenge. He included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour's treatment of it. If you don't agree, please show where Dr. Latour specifies the dimensions of the plates before wrongly concluding that T remains 150. Also, why did Dr. Latour explicitly allow for K = 1 and k = 1, which describes a fully-enclosing blackbody passive plate?

Dr. Latour really did wrongly claim that a fully-enclosing passive plate wouldn't warm the heated plate (aka Jane's "source"). I've shown that his claim violates conservation of energy. As long as the shell is warmer than the chamber walls (which it is), the net radiative heat loss from the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") is reduced. So power in > power out, which means the heated plate either warms or energy isn't conserved. Just like how a bathtub fills up.

"Stop prevaricating"? Really? I've showed that Dr. Latour was wrong because his claim violates conservation of energy. Again, in physics that's a really big mistake.

Since you just linked to this excellent example, did you notice that MIT solved this problem at the very top and got a completely different answer than Dr. Latour?

How is that prevaricating? Did you even read MIT's solution to this problem? They show how to solve it correctly.

Again, note that MIT's final expression reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957.

3 hours ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Don't you see that you threw in this whole "thermal superconductor" schtick without considering what properties a thermal superconductor must actually have? In order to superconduct, it must be the same temperature everywhere, always. The only way this would be even remotely possible were if it were a perfect radiator... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Superconductors are distinguished from aluminum by internal properties, not radiative surface properties. That's because conduction happens inside materials, whereas radiation is emitted and absorbed on surfaces.

... The only way this would be even remotely possible were if it were a perfect radiator, with emissivity of 1. It would also be a perfect absorber, absorptivity of 1. Regardless of wavelength. So while this might not technically be true, for all practical purposes it is: a thermal superconductor would be completely transparent to all radiation... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

No. As I've explained, emissivity = 1 and absorptivity = 1 is the definition of a blackbody. A completely transparent material would have transmittance = 1 and absorptivity = 0. Blackbodies can't be transparent.

... a thermal superconductor ... has no "thermal mass". So it would have absolutely no effect on anything in this experiment. For practical purposes, it would not exist. Your idea that you can get around this by placing some kind of thin lining on its interior doesn't work. It's still as though it weren't there at all... all you have left for practical purposes is the thin shell, nothing else. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell rather than a thermal superconductor shell. Both shells warm the heated plate to ~233.8F.

... That's why I say: no more prevarication. No more beating about the bush. Take Spencer's original challenge, apply Latour's thermodynamic treatment of it, and show where it is wrong. Anything else constitutes failure to back up your claim that Latour is wrong and -- as you have said more than once -- some kind of nutcase. You've had more than 2 years. That is plenty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Dr. Spencer's original challenge included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour. Note that Dr. Latour never specifies the dimensions of the plates (as Jane began to) before wrongly concluding that T remains 150. This means his incorrect conclusion must apply to all geometries, including a fully-enclosing passive plate. In fact, notice that Dr. Latour explicitly allows for K = 1 and k = 1, which describes a fully-enclosing blackbody passive plate.

So Dr. Latour wrongly claimed that a fully-enclosing passive plate wouldn't warm the heated plate. I've shown that his claim violates conservation of energy. As long as the shell is warmer than the chamber walls (which it is), the net radiative heat loss from the heated plate is reduced. So power in > power out, which means the heated plate either warms or energy isn't conserved. Just like how a bathtub fills up.

Since you just linked to this excellent example, did you notice that MIT solved this problem at the very top and got a completely different answer than Dr. Latour?

Again, note that MIT's final expression reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957.

yesterday
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

No, I'm not wrong. You calculated the outside temperature from the inside temperature, saying it's LOWER because of its greater area. This much is correct. THEN you try to say that with a thermal superconductor, the inner temperature would be the same as outside. Except you just calculated that outside temperature from a WARMER interior. You quite literally can't have it both ways. EITHER you're claiming a superconductor has a different temperature on both sides, or you're claiming that the inside has 2 different temperatures simultaneously. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Remember that the inner surface of the enclosing shell is different than the surface of the heated plate. The inner and outer surfaces of the enclosing shell are at exactly the same temperature because it's a thermal superconductor. That's what I've always been saying, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.

The surface of the heated plate at equilibrium, however, is warmer than the inner surface of the enclosing shell. It has to be.

Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured. This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I've repeatedly linked to that excellent example. Despite your incoherent protests, it's a relevant example where a passive plate reduces radiative heat loss from a warmer source, warming it to a higher equilibrium temperature. It's a real world example which shows Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong.

See? Same shit different day. You won't sit down and do the calculations start-to-finish, instead you do one small part, then start indulging in your hallmark game of out-of-context he-said, she-said, toss in a straw-man, then claim it's all proved. ... It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish. All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Don't you see the irony here? I've repeatedly done the calculations "start-to-finish" by deriving and solving equations describing the final equilibrium temperature of the enclosed plate using increasingly realistic scenarios. I've repeatedly told you that you'd only be able to understand this thought experiment if you did the same. But you still haven't. Haven't you noticed that I'm the only one here deriving equations and doing calculations?

Is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here that you won't even attempt to solve this problem because you know you're wrong?

And I want to be clear about this: I'm not demanding anything from you. YOU are the one who proclaimed Latour wrong, therefore it is your burden to demonstrate that he actually is, by showing exactly where he is incorrect. ... The whole point: You claimed Latour was wrong. But you refuse to back up your claim by showing WHERE in his calculations he was incorrect. That's your burden and you haven't been meeting it. Until you do, you have no argument to make. You can throw all the ad-hominem and straw-man arguments and irrelevancies in that you want, but none of it proves you correct. Until you actually show where Latour made a mistake, in his actual calculations related to this experiment, you're wrong by default. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Once again, Dr. Latour and Jane claim that enclosing the heated plate wouldn't warm it. I've shown that this would violate conservation of energy.

In physics, violating conservation of energy is a pretty big mistake.

yesterday
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

... you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Again, I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:

"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. ... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."

These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple. If Jane and Dr. Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation is correct, why have accurate thermocouples used radiation shields since at least 1968? Isn't that an example of a "real world" situation that's ultimately what we're talking about?

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

After twice pretending that I'd claimed the inner temperature wasn't equal to its outer temperature of 149.6F... now you make that incorrect claim yourself? Bizarrely, I have to point out that a thermal superconductor enclosing shell will have an inner temperature equal to its outer temperature, exactly as I originally said.

This reminds me of your other similar mistake that you haven't acknowledged:

A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:

"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."

I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.

Over a period of MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a thorough analysis of this experiment. EVERY TIME, you have done (usually incorrectly) a partial analysis, then declared the subject proved. But it never was. When pressed, you resorted to the same kind of bullshit you have pulled here, with ad-hominem, not-sequiturs, and straw-men. NEVER daring to face the full problem in real detail. ... You have NEVER, ONCE, tackled the problem head-on. Always a little twist here, a little change there, let's ignore areal exposure to the ambient radiation, ad nauseum. Always weaseling sideways, never quite taking on the task of REFUTING LATOUR, even though that's what you claimed to be doing, with all your misdirection. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

You're claiming my calculations are somehow incorrect, but if you'd really found an error it would have been much faster for you to simply lead by example and show how to do the calculations correctly. That would constitute engaging in a thorough analysis of this experiment.

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Jane, you just quoted me saying that "its outer temperature is 149.6F ... let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F"

Don't you see how my quote shows you were wrong to twice pretend that I'd claimed otherwise?

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Spencer's INITIAL description of his thought experiment. As I have told you several time. This first, then more if you want to get into it. I will not discuss this with you in the other order, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU. Because until you get that right, you're not going to get the other one right. If you continue to argue the other case first, then we are done, and I will write you off as hopeless. ... No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.

Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?

... Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.

...Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:

... its outer temperature is 149.6F ... pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F ... [Dumb Scientist]

So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other? What a magical world you must live in. [Jane Q. Public]

No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Spencer's INITIAL description of his thought experiment. As I have told you several time. This first, then more if you want to get into it. I will not discuss this with you in the other order, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU. Because until you get that right, you're not going to get the other one right. If you continue to argue the other case first, then we are done, and I will write you off as hopeless. ... No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.

Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?

... Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.

...Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:

... its outer temperature is 149.6F ... pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F ... [Dumb Scientist]

So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other? What a magical world you must live in. [Jane Q. Public]

No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Correction: However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and passive plate temperatures...

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

... power in = power out. ... Using irradiance (power/m**2) simplifies the equation: electricity + sigmaT(c)**4 = sigmaT(h)**4

This is a joke, right? Trying to see if I'd catch it? Again, among other things you are substituting irradiance for power without factoring in any area. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]

Again, start with power in = power out through a boundary with surface area "A". Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation because we can divide both sides by "A" to obtain irradiance in = irradiance out.

... I mentioned this to you several times, but you haven't picked up on it: just for one thing, you're claiming to be using flux but flux has an areal component which you are not accounting for. You say power in = power out, which may be true, but that total power is being transferred via emissive power, which is in W/m^2. Nowhere are you accounting for this. As I stated before: you are conflating power and emissive power, and you can't do that. Where are your areas? It might conserve energy but without areas you do not have the information required to calculate actual radiative temperature. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]

Again, as long as the enclosing shell is nearly the same size as the heated plate, those areas are nearly irrelevant. And because it's a simpler problem (like a tricycle) one should master it before trying to ride a bicycle with complicated view factors. I already specified my areas. Again, neglecting area ratios predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 235F after it's enclosed. Accounting for area ratios similar to Earth's predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 233.8F.

So the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.

Incidentally, that tricycle is much more accurate than Jane's prediction that the heated plate remains at 150F even after it's enclosed.

... I repeat: get the experiment with the two separate plates (actively heated plate and passive plate) right first. Then you can move on to a fully-enclosing plate. You say it's simpler but in a way it's not; you're trying to ride a bicycle when you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]

No. A spherical heated plate with a fully-enclosing shell has spherical symmetry, so the heated and enclosing plate temperatures are constant across their surfaces. That's why the equilibrium temperature solutions are just simple numbers.

However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and enclosing plate temperatures would be complicated functions of spherical coordinates theta and phi. That's a unicycle, not a tricycle.

... There are numerous sources, including physics and engineering textbooks, which contradict your analysis and conclusions. Why don't you try the engineering textbooks Latour cited, which have examples of real-world situations? After all: ultimately what we're talking about here is the real world, not a thought experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]

I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:

"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. ... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."

These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple without violating the first law, the second law, or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Just like the greenhouse effect.

... Create a realistic scenario, draw yourself a diagram, and run some actual numbers on them rather than just tossing equations around without seeing how they fit together in the real world. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]

How ironic. I've explained how to derive equations for increasingly realistic scenarios, ran "actual numbers" and repeatedly told you that you'd only be able to understand this thought experiment if you did the same. But you still haven't. Haven't you noticed that I'm the only one here deriving equations and doing calculations, while you're too busy saying things like this?

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

"... what a despicable human being you are ... an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being ... Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. ... a clusterfuck pretending to be physics ... " [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

Typo: Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the source...

3 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:

"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."

I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.

... Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

Again, Eq. 1 describes equilibrium temperature:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Eq. 1 shows that Jane and "the whole of Latour's argument" are wrong. Net heat transfer doesn't have to flow from plate to source in order to cause the heat source to be hotter. Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the plate, as long as electrical heating power is constant.

... you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it. ... Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

No. As I originally said: "Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation... Sage solves Eq. 1 for a constant electric input of 509 W/m^2."

So the variable "electricity" has always been in the same units as irradiance, which made the equations simpler. The electrical power used by the heater is "electricity" times the surface area of the heated plate. I've repeatedly noted that electrical heating power is constant, which means that the variable "electricity" is also constant unless the heated plate shape-shifts to change its surface area. Just to be clear, I haven't been considering shapeshifting plates.

Again, it's fascinating that Jane keeps wrongly implying my previous calculations had units confused, but didn't point out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted.

3 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (520 comments)

... I'm not in the slightest confused. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

That's what I told Demena.

... I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation). My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

Empty bluster won't stop me from continuing to debunk your civilization-paralyzing misinformation as long as I can.

... you still have yet to share with us what this "civilization-paralyzing misinformation" is. It isn't in the links you provided above. And you're still wrong about Spencer and Latour. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:

... The plate cannot cause the heat source to be hotter because that would require NET heat transfer in the other direction. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]

No. Again, warming the heat source doesn't require net heat transfer from the plate to the source. At equilibrium, power in = power out. Because electrical heating power is constant, the heat source warms even if net "power out" decreases. It doesn't have to reverse direction (plate to source) in order to warm the source.

Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose water flows from a bathtub faucet at a rate of 1 liter/minute. The drain is open, letting water out at 1 liter/minute. Since water in = water out, the bathtub water level is constant.

Now partially close the drain so water only leaves at 0.5 liter/minute. Since water in > water out, the bathtub water level rises.

Raising the bathtub water level doesn't require that the drain reverse direction and start pumping water up from the drain into the bathtub. Because the faucet pours a constant 1 liter/minute into the tub, raising the water level only requires reducing the water out.

3 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus "isn't" a 9/11 Truther (520 comments)

... I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds. ... I wasn't wrong, my information was just old. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong: "Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was... Just plain bullshit. ... Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's [she's?!?] talking about. ... Jeez, dude. Do you even read your own bullshit? ... You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much. ... maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid. ..."

... So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.

You've repeated this pattern ad nauseum. After your neutrino rant, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong and asked me "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it.

In fact, the more I read of these old streams, the more I've found where I was actually correct. (Like the one on bicycle stability for instance.) I have a copy of that paper right here and it says I was correct. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

It's more likely that your Sauron-class Morton's demon told you that it says you were correct. Just like you've insisted you were still correct about punctuation despite never providing sentences with the plurals of i, a, and u.

... YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not? ... in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.

... One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through all his bullshit: ask yourselves why he's keeping a record of ALL the comments I made on Slashdot over a period of years that he thinks were wrong. Do YOU do that to people? No, you don't, do you? That's because YOU are probably a normal human being, who doesn't stalk or obsess over strangers. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

I probably don't have more than about a month to live, so I'm obsessing over my legacy. The misinformation you're spreading seems like the biggest current threat to humanity, so I'll spend my final days debunking you.

... Your attempts to shame me haven't been coming off too well, you know. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

One disturbing possibility is that you can't experience shame, which is why I'm trying to figure out why you're shamelessly posing as a woman. Maybe the way you were raised could help answer this question.

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

4 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (520 comments)

So you're unable/unwilling to produce these records that you claimed I "don't seem to realize"? Irony?

4 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus "isn't" a 9/11 Truther (520 comments)

My point is that you've been spreading nonsense like a firehose for years, and each time your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinces you that you're right and the other person isn't very good at refutation. This doesn't just apply to your nonsense about climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Casimir effect and Maxwell's equations, creationists, Obama birthers and 9/11 Truthers.

It also applies to your nonsense about conservation of energy, beta decay, quantum computing, nuclear isomers, Cherenkov radiation, virtual particles, infinities, string theory, cold fusion, R o s s i ' s E - C a t L E N R h o a x, peltier coolers, GPS, bicycle stability, control theory, hyperbolic trajectories, relativistic slingshots, replicators, the Kessel run, x-rays, gene therapy, Dr. Bur z y n s k i, ferret superflu, fluo ride, ethanol, petaflops, correlation/causation, failure probabilities, slavery, h o m o p h o b i a, the transgendered, punctuation, space flight, thrust, specific impulse, fly-by-wire, the FAA, airspace, inflation and the gold standard, capitalism, bitcoins, atom bombs, AK-74's, NATO rounds, firearm laws, state laws, Shock and Awe, naval bases, paranoia, Layzej's link, etc.

4 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus "isn't" a 9/11 Truther (520 comments)

That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! ... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. ... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions. ... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". ... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]

... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects. Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water. Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe: When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]

... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military. ... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety. ... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a joke. The later NIST report ignores many important factors. ... burning jet fuel cannot "melt" structural steel. It's not even remotely hot enough. It's not even hot enough to seriously weaken it. But don't take my word for it. Regarding the thermite: see my reply and the link I provided a few comments up. Unless you are qualified to refute reputable experts in the field, then the fact remains that it is well-established that not only thermite, but a particular BRAND of thermite, was present in quantity. ... jet fuel does not burn anywhere near that hot. If you can melt a section of 12" steel I-beam with any quantity of jet fuel you want to use -- type A or B, I don't care -- I will personally lobby to get you the Nobel Prize. ... blah blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-15]

... there are truckloads of good evidence re: 9/11, yet most people just shrugged it off. ... Like university researchers (not crackpot nobodies) finding specialized, high-tech thermite in dust from 3 different locations. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-23]

This is very interesting. There is A LOT of evidence contradicting government accounts of 9/11. consensus911.org/the-911-consen... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-08-11]

4 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus "isn't" a birther (520 comments)

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

4 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus "isn't" a birther (520 comments)

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... I did not say Obama was born in a foreign land. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

... I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. ... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document. ... that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Obama's "Birth Certificate" lists race as African. In 1961, it would have said "Negro". The word "African" was not used to describe race. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

"[the real question is] not the sanity of the "birthers", but why the President did not produce his birth certificate long ago." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

No, the real question is the sanity of the birthers. But my favorite is Jane/Lonny Eachus's 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory.

4 days ago
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (199 comments)

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. ... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]

It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.

I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)

Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.

The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy around the heated plate at equilibrium? You'd quickly see that adding a passive enclosing plate reduces the net heat flow out, which warms the heated plate.

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your telepathy isn't working correctly. I don't think you're being stupid. I just think you either haven't thought deeply enough about the equation describing conservation of energy at equilibrium, or that you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

That's why I wanted to stress that admitting mistakes isn't the end of the world. I just admitted a mistake in my most recent calculation, and I'm okay. In fact, one way to convince posterity that you're honestly confused rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation would be to show that you have the courage to stop being wrong.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Editor Resigns Over Spencer and Braswell Paper

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 2 years ago

khayman80 writes "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, writes:

... as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. ... why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chiefto make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

"

Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Falsifiability is the basis of science

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective. [ShakaUVM]

That's quite a euphemism for repeatedly accusing scientists of failing to construct and test falsifiable theories, or accusing them of dishonestly claiming more knowledge than there is.

Because

Now, I'd grown accustomed to 'spiritual'Â claims, and had decided to ignore them because they weren't falsifiable . ... I would like to see falsifiable evidence that they exist, rather than mere supposition. [emphasis added in all quotes] [Dumb Scientist]

science

My sense of duty to science stops here, unfortunately, so I can't falsify this hypothesis. [Dumb Scientist]

is

scientific theories have to make unique, falsifiable predictions. ... A metatheory has to be specific enough that it can be falsified entirely, though, otherwise it's not scientific. ... The Big Bang metatheory could be proven wrong by ... in the strictest sense his theory was falsified in the 1940s ... Evolution can also be falsified ... [Dumb Scientist]

primarily

... But don't include experimental data or unfalsifiable assumptions about parallel universes in order to account for fine-tuning of any physical constants ... [Dumb Scientist]

DEFINED

... presumably high-speed photography could falsify Chris's explanation. On the other hand, it's harder to falsify my hypothesis because ... [Dumb Scientist]

by

I agree that models which don't make falsifiable predictions are worthless. I've just never seen that happen in peer reviewed journals. [Dumb Scientist]

falsifiability,

It's definitely falsifiable science, too. [Dumb Scientist]

you

My third piece of evidence is the concept of falsifiability. You see, a scientific hypothesis needs more than naturalism to be valid. It also needs to be falsifiable in the sense that an experiment (either real or gedanken) can be performed that will either support the theory or disprove it. Evolution, for example, is falsifiable in many different ways. ... any scientific theory proposes a naturalistic explanation for some feature of the world, and makes falsifiable predictions ... Because 'Intelligent Design'Â is not naturalistic and makes no falsifiable predictions, it not only isn't right, it isn't even wrong. ... it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable. ... supernatural explanations are ... not falsifiable ... [Dumb Scientist]

should

But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design. ... Evolution is falsifiable science, while intelligent design is a religious belief. [Dumb Scientist]

probably

... evolution is only compatible with the evidence 'all life uses the same DNA,'Â which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead. [Dumb Scientist]

just

It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. ... evolution is falsifiable science. ... I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. ... It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism ... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? ... Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could - in principle - falsify creationism/ID. [Dumb Scientist]

admit

The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science. ... that's my central point: creationism/ID isn't science because it's not falsifiable. Every time I mention this, you provide an example that could falsify evolution and claim that it's (somehow) a way to falsify creationism. [Dumb Scientist]

that

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution. ... it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. ... they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. [Dumb Scientist]

your

While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more 'why'Â questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of 'why'Â questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. [Dumb Scientist]

nonsensical

In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that's very different from being 'proven true.'Â [Dumb Scientist]

and

I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science. [Dumb Scientist]

insulting

You say that as though my life's work isn't developing and falsifying hypotheses. ... [Dumb Scientist]

comments

But, as I've stressed, creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases. ... Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable. [Dumb Scientist]

on

Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. ... [Dumb Scientist]

error

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't. [Dumb Scientist]

bars

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from. [Dumb Scientist]

were

Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science. ... It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. [Dumb Scientist]

"libel".

And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition. [Dumb Scientist]

... It's nice to see that we both agree on the core matter. ... [ShakaUVM]

No, the "core matter" here is that you're repeatedly and baselessly libelling an entire subfield of physicists, which I most certainly do not agree with, in any sense of the word.

Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It's like telling a plumber "Oh, come on... you don't really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink." Presumably, people wouldn't insult him by suggesting that he's fundamentally incompetent at his life's work. Maybe that's because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators? [Dumb Scientist]

... the point of my original post above was to talk about the very paradox of verification and falsification in regards to climate science... which I think it seems you agree with. They are very problematic. [ShakaUVM]

This is the second time you've claimed that I agree with your bizarre misconceptions. Please stop. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. As I've already discussed, some physics topics can seem very problematic if you spend your time (for instance) running a small business. That's why professional physicists spend that time doing physics and getting structured feedback from other physicists. As it turns out, experience and peer-review can help one tackle subjects which armchair quarterbacks might consider "very problematic." If that weren't true, then physicists probably would agree with you... but only if they could manage to stop muttering "f*ckin' magnets, how do they work?"

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>