Leaderboard

I guess I can refer to Germans as Nazis from now on since I'm of German heritage and don't mean it in a negative way. I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse to serve your purposes or if you really can't see all the flaws in your arguments.

And this is exactly the sort of problem I highlighted in my first post: people may come up with clever-sounding ideas that don't work because they don't understand all the details. Then other people (you, in this case) may dismiss perfectly sound ideas with straw man arguments because they haven't looked into all the details and assume it can't possibly work. Or, more realistically, the power company offers a deal where you get a slightly lower rate if you will allow them to borrow, say, 10% of your battery's charge - with guarantees about when/how this can happen to ensure that you are not inconvenienced and can drive your car in an emergency. But feel free to carry on with your assumption that no car manufacturers and infrastructure companies have thought about how this could work practically. wallflash: "I would love to hear everyone's ideas on how we can tackle climate change" wallflash: "No, that won't work" wallflash: "No, I don't agree" wallflash: "No. wallflash: "No" If we have this much difficulty coming up with purely hypothetical ideas between friends, imagine how much harder it must be for people who actually have to solve the technical, economic and political problems to get anything done. It is amazing that any progress is being made at all.

So you're the arbiter of what's insulting or not? That's what you've set yourself up as, with the first couple of posts, and now this.

It is confusing. You can't find a clear example of someone being called a liar, but still think it's a problem?

This was really insightful, though slightly displaced from another similar possibility which has crossed my mind... Namely, he consistently ignores feedback in all of his various threads, keeps repeating invalid points even after getting corrected, keeps failing to support anything with evidence even when asked, then gets called out for trolling. Voila! He gets to point back here and tell us all how blinkered we are and how we’re all far too eager to call innocent well meaning people like him trolls... something which all those other better forums would NEVER do.

You say you want to discuss solutions, but I don't see any solutions in your posts. All I see is moaning about the problems. I consider that the solutions will not come from any one single direction or action, but from a combination of sevaral, if not many. So we might reduce consumption, perhaps by efficiencey, perhaps by removing the need for some goods or services or by reducing waste, or by better technology. See we are already into combinations of multiple actions. In Europe it is already mandatory (forbidden) to install fossil fuel heaters in new housing in somecountries and it is proposed for the UK. You are worried that will throw an extra unacceptable load onto the electricity supply. But will it? Here is my experience. In 2016 I replaced my aged and failed gas boiler with an electric heat pump. I have been monitoring performance since then so I now have four years of performance data, of the heat pump and a 30 year previous averaging to compare it with. Not only am I now using less energy than the previous combined electric and gas total, I am barely using more electricity than before. (This was a pleasant suprise) Certainly my demand is still well within the parameters submitted when I signed up for this electricity supply 30 years ago.

Thank you, this may well be where my lack of formal mathematical training is clouding my reasoning eh! I appreciate the responses, nice forum here! 🙂

Yes, 3D space is a volume. We live in 3D space Things like points and lines are mathematical concepts. They can be useful in physics (and other areas). For example, the route between London and New York is 1D line. That is not a "thing"; but it is mathematically useful. Similarly, electrons (which may or may not be "things" depending how you define "thing") are modelled as 0D points. That is useful because it corresponds to the way they behave. Many areas of science use multi-dimensional abstract spaces. (Even "soft" sciences like social science.) Because they are useful ways of describing the world. Science, generally, isn't concerned with "reality" but about what we can measure and describe. If you want to discuss "reality" then you probably want philosophy (or maybe religion) rather than science. He did actually say that we can describe the universe as a 4D construct that combines space and time (called, not suprisingly, spacetime). All four dimensions have equal status of being "real" whatever that means. And all four are affected by the presence of mass (resulting in effects like gravity or time dilation).

Thanks Strange, this paragraph helps a lot, I've had trouble following along with the Bell stuff, I can follow it up with this in mind. Can I ask, how do we actually "know" that the properties of the photon are not "actual" or "real" until we measure/detect? I understand that the very act of "measurement" is intrusive and can perturb the particle we are looking at, thus throwing up uncertainties in the results. I can understand that, say, narrowing your resolution to precisely locate a particle, you thereby lose information about how fast it is going (for velocity or momentum, you need to see the particle travelling, therefore lose the precision of location/position)... Or, I may have got this all wrong eh!? Isn't this all about how we "interpret" quantum mechanics? Don't some interpretations actually say the particle properties do actually exist, regardless of whether we measure them or not? If a photon, say, exists in some superposed ambiguity of states that includes all polarities etc... doesn't that mean that "realism" is out the window, and that observation (whether measuring apparatus, or our minds) basically "create" the world around us? Also, if it is "realism" we are binning, how does that solve the locality problem of two entangled particles separated at vast distances? (Sorry for noob/lay questions, just trying to learn! 🤨 Certainly not trying to espouse any of my own ideas or anything! 🙂 I hope it's ok asking this sort of stuff here. Please let me know if I'm infringing any guidelines, thank you! 🙂)

The difference is that the shoe in the box was always a left foot. Opening the box doesn't define whether it is left or right; it is inherent to the nature of the shoe. In that sense the "handedness" (footedness? chirality) of the shoe is technically "real". Opening the box just reveals what it is. Whereas the spin (for example) of a photon is not only unknown before it is is measured, but it doesn't even have a defined value until it is measured. In that sense it is not "real". So by measuring the spin, you don't just find out what the value is, you cause it to have a value. And, instantly, cause the entangled partner to have the opposite value. Another important difference is that the shoe can only be left or right. Whereas you can measure the spin at any angle and get a + or - value for the spin at that angle. And if you measure the spin of the entangled partner at the same angle, you will find it has the opposite value. How do we know that the values of the spin are not "real" (defined, like shoes, when the entangled pair were created)? Now, this is where it gets subtle and tricky (and therefore where I might well get the details wrong!). If you were to measure the spin of the entangled partner at 90º to the angle you measure the first photon, you would find there was no correlation. If you measure the spin at some angle between 0º and 90º, you will find there is statistical correlation. The probability of this correlation can be calculated assuming the particles had "real" (defined) values for the spin or they can be calculated using the rules of quantum theory. These two calculations give different results (known as Bell's Inequality). So by measuring this, we can test whether quantum theory gives the right answer or not. (Spoiler alert: it does!) Hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will correct any errors in that! But I hope it helps a bit.

Yeah it probably isn't, sorry for the hijack...

"I merely present problems I see because I haven't looked into this at all." (I will refrain from using the "i-word" to describe someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.) Do you really think that the industrial standards that allow you to connect any computer to an Ethernet port, or use the same type of memory card in your computer, camera and phone are mandated by law? "I am going to counter the information about a real project being worked on by car makers and power companies by inventing some numbers about a completely different technology"

You'd be surprised just how extremely familiar I am with the vocation and org type you describe (though, not usually at companies as small as the one you mention here with only 3.5K ee's), but I'm not terribly clear how the post you made ties to the discussion taking place. Perhaps you can clarify? If I try reading between the lines, it seems like you're suggesting climate scientists fudge their data thus rendering it untrustworthy and their conclusions false. Am I reading you right? Hard to pass up an opportunity now to share this classic:

Sweeping generalisations are so much hand waving if not founded in fact. They are certainly not scientific statements. I have presented facts concerning your claim that every electrical vehicle adds to the grid load its total energy use. You have not answered this. Perhaps as an american you can resolve this conundrum. This site claims that in 2010 there were 125 million housholds connected to the USgrid(s) https://sites.google.com/site/theuspowergrid/ This site claims that in 2010 there were 117.5 million households in the US How does this arise? In any case are you telling me that there are not many ranches, lineshacks, cabins, individual homes of all sorts in say Alaska, Texas, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, etc that do not have their own generator ? Secondly you claim that the existing grid cannot absorb the extra load. Where is your engineering evidence for this? Such a claim is untrue in the UK and Europe generally. Some countries are already making specialist charging points compulsory and they are optionally available in the UK. Are you telling me that the grid needs to be upgrades to service these? What about housing estates? Are you telling me that new lines have to be laid all the way back to the power stations? I don't think so +1

It doesn't have to. You're casting this as all-or-nothing and that's not the situation. Any local generation you add reduces the grid capacity requirement. If your solar provides you 500 W at some time in the day, then your demand from the grid has dropped by that amount. It's cloudy? Then solar drops, but then, demand probably does, too, as it's generally cooler when it's cloudy. If you can generate all of your power from rooftop solar that's wonderful, but the point is that any local generation of power reduces stress on the grid. Since demand is not constant, if the grid can handle transmission of peak demand then it's not an immediate problem if peak demand does't go up. One of the nice things about solar is that it roughly tracks the demand. AC demand is highest in the afternoon, when the sun is shining, which is when you are generating maximum solar. If your increased demand for e.g. EV charging is at night, so you are off-peak, and grid capacity is there. You and everyone else.

Why not? If someone says something blatantly untrue, isn't it intellectually dishonest not to consider all the possibilities? There's lying and ignorance. What other possibility is there for blatant untruths? I know that in certain conversations, pointing out someone's error is considered rude. But that's not the paradigm under which science discussion operates. As have I. And just scientists — no need to disparage them by calling them nerds. Which, given your position here, I'm sure you'll you'll agree.

Right here in the OP. Surely you haven't forgotten what you posted?!?! So does that mean your workmates in the discussion included women or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu

I feel insulted by the op.

Actually, no. Probably not. Much more likely is confirmation bias.

Or men have larger hippocampi because they were encouraged to explore the world as boys, as girls were encouraged to domestic play (recently came across this with my niece who wanted a remote control car as a present but the mother over-ruled her to get a cooking toy). If we're imagining a society starting from scratch we'd need to know the direction of causality, at the moment we have only correlation (as far as i know - haven't delved into the literature). Again, how much of this is biological and how much cultural conditioning? My impression is that any biological differences are exaggerated by cultural norms. To imagine a truly matriarchal nascent society we need to strip away this cultural element, leaving us with a biological case from which to proceed (although it probably isn't as easy to separate culture and biology as i suggest given one emerges from the other). Maybe there are animal studies that could give us some clues?

Because of biology, or because of cultural norms and constraints? Here are six current ones. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/ More, if you go into the history books

if you provide a drawing we can calculate the outcome. This may be a good approach since it is more general and does not go into details about magnetic fields.

That's going to depend on the circumstances. In particular, if they are liars, trolls, and / or ignorant.

We could do with a little more civility around here. Both INow and Zap can call me names/insult me if they wish, and I won't take it personally; after a while you get to know people. New members however, haven't gotten to know our personalities yet, and can be put off by our behavior sometimes. I have come to recognize that you need to tread lightly in certain subjects like AGW, as some people will assume posts have ulterior motives/agendas; a new member, who is unsure about the science will ask a question and be accused of being a denier. Now, quite a few times this turns out to be true, but we've probably turned away quite a few new members who thought they could come to a science site and discuss anything science related, without being accused of having an agenda. I don't say "This is who we are; if you don't like it, there's the door.". Rather, I want to thank Wallflash for bringing it to our attention, and personally, I will endeavor to do better and be more civil. ( my avatar might look bad-ass, but I'm actually a very sweet guy )

100% refund of the purchase and installation of solar panels on the roofs of ordinary people's homes. >= 50% refund of the purchase and installation of solar panels on company roofs. Tax reduction for everybody joining in to even further encourage people? Establishment of state-owned solar panel making companies across the country (otherwise government money would go to countries with the lowest solar panel price that would increase national debt). In other words, what the government will spend on solar panels, would end up as income of hundreds thousands of people working in these companies and installations. Current methods ("carbon tax") are not constructive. Electricity making companies will pass the all costs to their customers and they will be, as always, victims of the regulation made by government. Current methods rely on private companies to do everything (to earn money). Investors interested in renewable energy sources are starting from ground level and what they will earn one year will invest in the next year which drastically limits the growth rate. State-owned solar panels making companies can start from hundreds production factories across the entire country without bothering about cost of such giant investment since day zero (establishment of such company). If government would not pay for Apollo program, private business sector would not ever do in, as it is impossible to make money on it! Private business mostly do everything the easiest ways to earn money. It is unlikely that SpaceX would make rockets if they would not have possibility to make deal with NASA for delivery of stuff to ISS. Where would these rockets fly? Such company would be infinite hole sucking in the all investors moneys and would not ever return investment in any predictable time span. It would remain toy of billionaire or never being established.

Ignorant, not stupid. If you’re going to come here as a new member and start bitching about the way people use words, it would be helpful if you at least properly understood their definitions.

That is exactly the sort of comment that moderators here do make to people who cross (or get close to the line). Persistent offenders may get suspended or even banned. The only way you seem to be out of step with others is in seeing offensive language where others see none. I don't believe such a general attitude exists or would be tolerated by the moderation team. Stating that people who believe the world is flat are ignorant is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. Saying that if they are not ignorant they must be lying would probably not be permitted if aimed at a specific individual, even if not a member here. But as a general statement about the motives of a group, it seems defensible. As zapatos says, we know that many people lie about certain subjects for political or financial reasons. The rules, and how rigidly they are enforced, varies between forums. For example, we are fairly relaxed about general members reminding others of the rules but another forum I am a member of has a very strict rule that only moderators can do anything that looks like moderating. One has to find the forum or forums that suit you. (Which you could choose to interpret as "if you don't like it here, you can go elsewhere" )

Seems that some people believe arguing about the discussion is the same as discussing the argument.

I cannot extract that meaning from the sequence of posts. Let's put it in context: A: "There are two sides: people who think the world is round and those who think it is flat." B: "There are not two sides, there are those who know what the world is like and others who are ignorant or lying" Note that A does not claim to be on one side or the other. Note that B does not say anything about A's beliefs. Also, even if A now says "And I am in the second group" then factually they are either ignorant (or misinformed) or they know that the world is not flat and so they are lying. If they refuse to admit they are ignorant, that doesn't make them a liar, as you suggest. No. If he tells them climate change is wrong and the Earth is flat then he is only a liar if he does it knowing it is not true. If he is ignorant of the facts then he is not lying. No. They are lying unless they are just ignorant (even if they are unwilling to admit it). Or misinformed or wrong for some other reason.

The quote appears to be a general comment and does not seem to be directed at a specific person. As such it does not seem to call a particular user a liar. This is not semantics but an important distinction. Second, it also leaves the door open that folks argue from a point of ignorance rather than deliberate deception.

Eventually, creationists do more damage when we entertain their delusions. Other people reading their ignorance may not understand if it isn't shut down hard. We used to patiently explain here too, until we realized the creationists never learned, and they never stopped using arguments that were thoroughly debunked. Almost by definition, creationists are intellectually dishonest in their "reasoning". We don't have a lot of patience for willingly obtuse behavior. If a person wants to learn, we're all over that. If you want to buck the mainstream, go right ahead as long as you've got the supportive evidence for your arguments. I want you to remember this. As far as climate change is concerned, the scientists here have been forced to deal with fringe opinions that are asserted as if half the discipline agrees with them. The media presents almost all arguments these days as if half the people are on one side and half on the other, screaming across the middle. It's very compelling entertainment, but it fails to inform the public about this very, very important issue. It fails to show how few people there are opposing AGW who don't have a vested interest in fossil fuels. I hope you'll forgive some vitriol when an ignorant person repeats a long debunked argument as if it's gospel.

You already started with an emotional guess about the percentage that was already present. I doubt we can reason you away from that view. I'm very leery these days about people with emotional criticisms. The current POTUS is criminally proficient at screaming he's being treated unfairly, and it's gotten him a lot of leeway he didn't earn and doesn't deserve. I'm suspicious that you're setting the stage here by painting people as unreasonable and rude if they argue against you.