Science things

[YJ02]

Ah, ok. You can make it using the emissions...from coal fired plants.

References:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00625-generating-gasoline-from-co2-emissions

A more scientific one:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/en...uccessfully-generate-gasoline-out-of-thin-air

Thing is, the process which makes CO2 (combined with hydrogen and oxygen) into methanol and then gasoline would require more energy to produce than it generates in the resultant fuel. I see it as a pitch to bring coal back into favor as a fuel.

That's what I suspected. And coal is definitely taking a beating from all fronts; the traditional environ's and the cheaper natural gas supply.

 

[shavedape]

Coal is the reason my lights turn on. I like having lights that turn on.

 

[YJ02]

Anyone listen to the NPR Physics podcast I posted? Just wondering what MZZZ and any other science people think of it?
thx

 

[mzzz]

Sorry, yongjin, it's too long to listen to, but seemed to be talking about the accelerating expansion of the universe. What did you think about it? I can't say much on it since I don't know much astrophysics (taking it next semester).

 

[YJ02]

Sorry, yongjin, it's too long to listen to, but seemed to be talking about the accelerating expansion of the universe. What did you think about it? I can't say much on it since I don't know much astrophysics (taking it next semester).

Well hell! How am I to know anything other then it was interesting from a general point of view.

It seems that this guy is talking about time, black holes and string theory universes and that perhaps are accepted take on them-by those in science-is wrong or short sighted.

But again, since I am no physicist-how would I know?

 

[mzzz]

You have to take into account that most people are only interested in the 'pop sci' content of physics, so naturally most of the questions will be directed at those things. It's a shame really, rather than learning things from the ground up, people are only inquisitive about superficial top-down concepts rather than bottom-up.

 

[Overmind One]

You have to take into account that most people are only interested in the 'pop sci' content of physics, so naturally most of the questions will be directed at those things. It's a shame really, rather than learning things from the ground up, people are only inquisitive about superficial top-down concepts rather than bottom-up.

But if the "bottom-up" of physics starts off on the wrong path, then just how useful is it in the advancement of physics? A jazz musician can learn dexterity from learning and playing Bach, but nothing of improvisation or jazz from that foundation. This "top down" is more the passive absorber of physics rather than the visionary who looks at the root of physics (meaning directly observing the interactions of matter and energy). I gotta say mzzz, you really sound like a snob when you discuss physics. You dismiss alternate studies of physics as though they are the work of laymen and inferiors, and forget that Einstein was treated the same way until his theories allowed the creation of the atomic bomb. Prior to that, Newton was the god of physics and anything outside of Newtonian physics was considered "superficial pop-sci". Just sayin.

Having said that, the reason people (and other physicists and students) are not interested in schoolbook physics is because it is stagnant and has really contributed very little in the way of useful science in the past 50 years. Not so with biology, astrophysics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, physiology, etc. Entrenchment of the old physics stalwarts has turned "modern" physics into a club. It is stagnant. Applied physics is no different today than it was 100 years ago. Yet you dismiss alternate concepts as "superficial top down". Its a shame really.
--- merged: May 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM ---

Well hell! How am I to know anything other then it was interesting from a general point of view.

It seems that this guy is talking about time, black holes and string theory universes and that perhaps are accepted take on them-by those in science-is wrong or short sighted.

But again, since I am no physicist-how would I know?

You don't need to be a physicist to study any of that. Black holes (as defined by "modern" physics) may not even really EXIST. Same with strings, and time travel. And that guy was right when he said that some in science are short-sighted or wrong or both. Verbose writings and lengthy equations cannot legitimize flawed understandings. I find it very entertaining to read the lengthy journals of "science" written during the times when it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe, when maggots were believed to spontaneously manifest on spoiled meat, and when it was believed that lumps on the skull could tell you about the mental capacities of people. Be prepared to be snubbed by those who follow the hype faithfully without question, because to not do so would throw their entire feeling of self-importance into disarray.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Arrogance in physics (from 2003 and it has gotten worse):

http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/PTarrogance1.pdf

 

[mzzz]

lol that's why I refrain from commenting yongjin.

@overmind, you constantly make sweeping generalizations/assertions about the "current" state of physics, but you know almost nothing about physics. Your kind of physics isn't science, it's anti-science.

 

[Overmind One]

lol that's why I refrain from commenting yongjin.

@overmind, you constantly make sweeping generalizations/assertions about the "current" state of physics, but you know almost nothing about physics. Your kind of physics isn't science, it's anti-science.

And in the bolded is your arrogance. What exactly do YOU know about it? And if you simply rattle off what you have read and what you are being taught (which was written by others as well), then you are saying no more and doing no more than any other "modern" physicist. When I say "modern", I mean the current physics-church FOLLOWERS who can do nothing but refer to the Holy Books of Einstein and Newton but see nothing new in them, nor build upon them to advance knowledge of physics. Unlike a student of physics, Einstein CREATED new ideas about matter and energy. He studied Newton, but later supplanted him in the God seat. You might be able to write out a long explanation of the physics of an apple falling from a tree, but it will have come from Newton. I am not trying to discount your education in this field or even challenge any personal theories you might have with regard to physics, but you have not presented any. The physics of gravity in the real universe are unknown to "modern" physics. There is a lot of theory and scads of equations, but the understanding of it completely escapes "modern" physics because it is obsessed with the destruction of particles instead of the fusion of them. Devices like colliders will NEVER reveal the nature of gravity. Take the basic structure and function of a collider and scale it up to where the particles being accelerated are the size of billiard balls. So this device will take the billiard ball and send it around a circular "track" until it reaches near light speeds or even much much less. Then lets take another billiard ball (or any assorted balls) and smash them into the speeding ball. SMASH! Now we look at the fragments and measure radiation emissions on several wavelengths. What exactly are we learning from this? Einstein predicted the explosive power and yields for atomic explosions before a single lab was built. Newton's Law of universal gravitation was equally flawed, since it assumed a "gravitational constant". Einstein's General Theory of Relativity challenged and finally changed much of that. But Newton studied Kepler and modified his Laws as well.

I understand the need to start with a foundation and work with proven methods. But I do not understand the arrogant elevation of science into prestige pageants. Why challenge established theories about matter and energy? Because the current knowledge is inadequate, and in many cases just outright wrong. The Standard Model, for instance. The claim of Higgs Boson is as bogus as seeing the Virgin Mary in a frittata. Why should I care? Because BILLIONS are being wasted on ridiculously unproductive mega-money pits like CERN. There is just so much rot in the physics community. Hopefully some bright person like yourself will challenge the established dogma and advance the science past the rut it has been in for the past 100 years. New ideas and theories are not encouraged in physics. Only maintaining the status quo and advancing prestige. Anti-science indeed.

 

[YJ02]

View attachment 28248

But if the "bottom-up" of physics starts off on the wrong path, then just how useful is it in the advancement of physics? A jazz musician can learn dexterity from learning and playing Bach, but nothing of improvisation or jazz from that foundation. This "top down" is more the passive absorber of physics rather than the visionary who looks at the root of physics (meaning directly observing the interactions of matter and energy). I gotta say mzzz, you really sound like a snob when you discuss physics. You dismiss alternate studies of physics as though they are the work of laymen and inferiors, and forget that Einstein was treated the same way until his theories allowed the creation of the atomic bomb. Prior to that, Newton was the god of physics and anything outside of Newtonian physics was considered "superficial pop-sci". Just sayin.

Having said that, the reason people (and other physicists and students) are not interested in schoolbook physics is because it is stagnant and has really contributed very little in the way of useful science in the past 50 years. Not so with biology, astrophysics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, physiology, etc. Entrenchment of the old physics stalwarts has turned "modern" physics into a club. It is stagnant. Applied physics is no different today than it was 100 years ago. Yet you dismiss alternate concepts as "superficial top down". Its a shame really.
--- merged: May 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM ---


You don't need to be a physicist to study any of that. Black holes (as defined by "modern" physics) may not even really EXIST. Same with strings, and time travel. And that guy was right when he said that some in science are short-sighted or wrong or both. Verbose writings and lengthy equations cannot legitimize flawed understandings. I find it very entertaining to read the lengthy journals of "science" written during the times when it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe, when maggots were believed to spontaneously manifest on spoiled meat, and when it was believed that lumps on the skull could tell you about the mental capacities of people. Be prepared to be snubbed by those who follow the hype faithfully without question, because to not do so would throw their entire feeling of self-importance into disarray.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Arrogance in physics (from 2003 and it has gotten worse):

http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/PTarrogance1.pdf

So, OM1- I am assuming you tuned in to the podcast?

Most of these "Science fridays" NPR shows are meant to be for the non-informed, "spectator" to digest. However, Ira often has to re-direct or have the scientist "dumb down" what they are saying so as not to leave the listeners behind.

For me, alot of what this guy was saying was stuff I had never heard of before, at least not spoken of in this way. So--"pedestrian that I am" in the area, I do not know enough to decide whether I agreed or disagreed with the guy.
Despite Ira's attempts to keep it stupid

That is one of the reasons I put it here, to try to get a "translation" of sorts

If I were listening to say "History Thursdays" and they had a guy talking about the intricacies of the reforms of the Gracchi, without giving any backstory of when,where, etc-I would still know the place and time and backstory. The host would not have to dumb it down for me to keep up. This is quite the opposite for me on "science fridays(there are no history thursdays by the way)" But as I listened I could well envision the hobby or professional scientist fully understanding it all and yelling at the radio everytime the host asked for backstory and context.
--- merged: May 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM ---

And in the bolded is your arrogance. What exactly do YOU know about it? And if you simply rattle off what you have read and what you are being taught (which was written by others as well), then you are saying no more and doing no more than any other "modern" physicist. When I say "modern", I mean the current physics-church FOLLOWERS who can do nothing but refer to the Holy Books of Einstein and Newton but see nothing new in them, nor build upon them to advance knowledge of physics. Unlike a student of physics, Einstein CREATED new ideas about matter and energy. He studied Newton, but later supplanted him in the God seat. You might be able to write out a long explanation of the physics of an apple falling from a tree, but it will have come from Newton. I am not trying to discount your education in this field or even challenge any personal theories you might have with regard to physics, but you have not presented any. The physics of gravity in the real universe are unknown to "modern" physics. There is a lot of theory and scads of equations, but the understanding of it completely escapes "modern" physics because it is obsessed with the destruction of particles instead of the fusion of them. Devices like colliders will NEVER reveal the nature of gravity. Take the basic structure and function of a collider and scale it up to where the particles being accelerated are the size of billiard balls. So this device will take the billiard ball and send it around a circular "track" until it reaches near light speeds or even much much less. Then lets take another billiard ball (or any assorted balls) and smash them into the speeding ball. SMASH! Now we look at the fragments and measure radiation emissions on several wavelengths. What exactly are we learning from this? Einstein predicted the explosive power and yields for atomic explosions before a single lab was built. Newton's Law of universal gravitation was equally flawed, since it assumed a "gravitational constant". Einstein's General Theory of Relativity challenged and finally changed much of that. But Newton studied Kepler and modified his Laws as well.

I understand the need to start with a foundation and work with proven methods. But I do not understand the arrogant elevation of science into prestige pageants. Why challenge established theories about matter and energy? Because the current knowledge is inadequate, and in many cases just outright wrong. The Standard Model, for instance. The claim of Higgs Boson is as bogus as seeing the Virgin Mary in a frittata. Why should I care? Because BILLIONS are being wasted on ridiculously unproductive mega-money pits like CERN. There is just so much rot in the physics community. Hopefully some bright person like yourself will challenge the established dogma and advance the science past the rut it has been in for the past 100 years. New ideas and theories are not encouraged in physics. Only maintaining the status quo and advancing prestige. Anti-science indeed.

Man--NOT ARGUING OR NOTHING--just observing that you take much the same issues with "Established and accepted" science as you do with "established and accepted" history/archaeology

and again-I dont know even a wit about this physics issue to even begin to agree/disagree with anyone

though I do find the possible practical applications of science in discussion to be quite interesting (while being spoonfed that is )

 

[Overmind One]

So, OM1- I am assuming you tuned in to the podcast?

Most of these "Science fridays" NPR shows are meant to be for the non-informed, "spectator" to digest. However, Ira often has to re-direct or have the scientist "dumb down" what they are saying so as not to leave the listeners behind.

For me, alot of what this guy was saying was stuff I had never heard of before, at least not spoken of in this way. So--"pedestrian that I am" in the area, I do not know enough to decide whether I agreed or disagreed with the guy.
Despite Ira's attempts to keep it stupid

That is one of the reasons I put it here, to try to get a "translation" of sorts

If I were listening to say "History Thursdays" and they had a guy talking about the intricacies of the reforms of the Gracchi, without giving any backstory of when,where, etc-I would still know the place and time and backstory. The host would not have to dumb it down for me to keep up. This is quite the opposite for me on "science fridays(there are no history thursdays by the way)" But as I listened I could well envision the hobby or professional scientist fully understanding it all and yelling at the radio everytime the host asked for backstory and context.

I read lots of physics journals. I subscribe to AIP (http://www.aip.org/), and I belong to more than one physics forum. Like TV shows and Apple products, the world of "mainstream physics" is akin to TPTB and not to other sciences like medicine and biology. There is no dogma or reverence for individuals in any of the other sciences except perhaps Astronomy. But I am no physicist and I make no claims remotely close to that. I am an enthusiast.

Man--NOT ARGUING OR NOTHING--just observing that you take much the same issues with "Established and accepted" science as you do with "established and accepted" history/archaeology

and again-I dont know even a wit about this physics issue to even begin to agree/disagree with anyone

though I do find the possible practical applications of science in discussion to be quite interesting (while being spoonfed that is )

YES to the bolded. That is because the ones who have established these things did so by force and not by consensus. If people did not challenge and/or eliminate "established and accepted" ideas, there would still be slavery today, there would be apartheid in South Africa, there would be no women in Congress or the Senate, nor would they be able to vote...getting my drift? Change is affected by challenging the status quo. But not for just a challenge's sake, for progress. Newton challenged Kepler's Laws. Einstein challenged Newton's laws, and since Einstein, everyone is still just following his theories and any alternate theories are dismissed. There is an entire hierarchy of prestige in the "modern" science of physics. Cambridge University figures into that very heavily as does the coveted Nobel Prize in Physics (and competition for it), as do "discoveries" which are actually the result of equations not balancing most of the time.

Many historical accounts are provably flawed and have been revised precisely because others challenged the "established and accepted" stories told by the originators of these accounts. But there is still lots and LOTS of "established and accepted" stuff to challenge. Stereotypes of ethnic cultures worldwide, the continued use of "minority" to describe the majority of Humanity, the false image of Jesus Christ, the existence of "race"...so many things. I take nothing at face value. But Im not a pathological cynic who challenges everything either. When things don't make sense, they are usually not what they seem.

 

[Bluce Ree]

You know, those who raise questions are the ones who inspire revolutions, whether they be political or intellectual. Calling someone stupid or mocking them for believing some parts of the established sciences may be incorrect is anti-progressive and nothing more than a blatant display of one's ignorance of the fact that "established" laws of science have evolved and still continue to evolve.

First, light was a universal constant. Then it became variable but constant within a frame. Now there's uncertainty being raised as to whether it's constant at all and completely subject to its environment. Who would have thought an atom could ever be seen. For the longest time, it was thought that atoms were impossible to view because they're too small to diffract light, yet here we are, having developed an electron microscope that can view atoms, which also revealed what they really look like (yet another change). Even though none of the current laws of physics have been technically invalidated, we're seeing physics and science evolve right now.

 

[Overmind One]

You know, those who raise questions are the ones who inspire revolutions, whether they be political or intellectual. Calling someone stupid or mocking them for believing some parts of the established sciences may be incorrect is anti-progressive and nothing more than a blatant display of one's ignorance of the fact that "established" laws of science have evolved and still continue to evolve.

First, light was a universal constant. Then it became variable but constant within a frame. Now there's uncertainty being raised as to whether it's constant at all and completely subject to its environment. Who would have thought an atom could ever be seen. For the longest time, it was thought that atoms were impossible to view because they're too small to diffract light, yet here we are, having developed an electron microscope that can view atoms, which also revealed what they really look like (yet another change). Even though none of the current laws of physics have been technically invalidated, we're seeing physics and science evolve right now.

Agreed, especially bolded. But there was never an attack on the science of physics, just the discussion of the construct that has been placed around it.

I once had a most interesting discussion with a Native American in Arizona, who said that it was only those who own nothing can see reality, because that is all they have. This is part of the concept of vision quests within that culture. To strip oneself of all pretenses and artificial constructs and see everything in clarity of thought. It is the premise of Robinson Crusoe. Even the story of the American colonists who dared challenge the Crown and its means of governance. Greatness never comes from conformity.

 

[Backstep]

Has Cold Fusion been achieved?

http://www.newser.com/story/168291/inventor-ive-cracked-cold-fusion.html