Leaderboard

The temperature probes are in the gas phase, not the liquid. And increased pressure will increase the temperature of the gas. Edit: cross posted with Strange. Sloppy experiments give people 'excuses' to deny validity.

! Moderator Note Moved to Computer Science (the Speculations forum is for people to present speculative scientific theories). But maybe Philosophy would be better; we can see how it goes. Existing now? No. Nowhere near. I think we are a long way away from anything close to string AI. If it is even possible. I have seen arguments on both sides but, generally, the "not possible" arguments seem to boil down "because we are special". The arguments that it is possible are not completely convincing, but at least they seem to be logical arguments based on facts.

Instead of describing a physical rocket and figuring out how the different points of it accelerate, you can specify how you want the different points to accelerate. If all you're comparing is two points, you can have the two points move independently and then not even care about the physical aspects of a rocket. For example, if you want to see what happens when they perform the same maneuvers, specify that the two points have identical acceleration measured from some inertial frame (eg. Earth frame). Or if you want the rocket to be rigid, use Born rigidity equations. It's especially pointless to describe the physical aspects of the rocket, then ignore the physics in some tiny details (like assuming it's completely rigid with one source of acceleration, which is impossible), and then try to figure out other tiny details of the physics. Sure. If the top and bottom accelerate at the same time and rate according to an observer on Earth, those clocks always read the same from Earth. While accelerating, the bottom clock ticks slower than the top (in their reference frames), this can be verified from the Earth frame just by considering the always increasing time it takes light signals to go from the bottom to the top (takes longer because the top is moving away during the time the light travels) vs top to bottom (takes less time). If the rocket then coasts, Earth says their clocks still read the same. On the rocket, the clocks now tick at the same rate but the rear clock is behind, in agreement with relativity of simultaneity. If the rocket reverses and returns to relative rest with the Earth, still with the same timing and rate of acceleration as measured by Earth, the clocks as always remain the same according to Earth, and now the rocket agrees with that. This would describe the situation in Bell's paradox, where eventually the rocket (fixed length in the Earth frame) rips apart. If you change that, so the clocks don't always have the same velocity as each other as measured by Earth, they can end up still out of sync after returning to Earth's inertial frame.

Origin is unclear and Chinese media is state controlled so not that credible. Latest reports claim to eliminate both bats and snakes. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-pangolin-is-now-a-suspect-in-the-coronavirus-outbreak. In any case, the claims of association are typically based on finding viral genetic signal of host fresident consistent that of the epidemic isolate - coincidence does not mean cause/source - e.g. folks are still arguing over armadillos as source of human leprosy. There is little doubt that (esp.) wet market food constantly exposes its vendors and customers to various microbes/viruses/prions and mabe stuff yet to be discovered - that occasionally take up residence with or without pathology. Think the issue is persistence/pathology and communicability rather than exposure. Re. wet markets - these are deep in Chinese urban food supply system and include both slaughtered and living animals. Moving them are out of cities is not practical as it moves them away from customers, and vendors are small business men whose limited resources will likely be be exceeded by requirement of cooking adequately all meats - and whose product will be limited to slaughtered and cooked flesh (even in the unlikely even of effective and consistent compliance).

It's not hard to find an experiment

This level of ignorance suggests that you aren’t to be taken seriously, and just have an agenda. Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy This belies your assertion that it’s just correlation. That may be what you are doing, but not science. Assertion. No supporting evidence. We’re talking about a global effect; desert vs rainforest is local. What is the average humidity in the world? How much can it grow, using factors of 2 as a measure? Compare to CO2. Bonus question: Why are factors of 2 the appropriate measure (as opposed to simple concentration values) when discussing warming? There is visible light. How much energy does this represent? A calculation. Some scientific analysis, rather than hand-waving. You brought up error bars as a suggestion that a graph not be trusted, so you must gave seen them. Don’t move the goalposts. You haven’t linked to this graph, and I’m not going to just take your word for it. And no, a standard deviation is not 1/4 Politics, not science, and until you substantiate this I will assume you just made this up.

Science? co2 has not been "studied well." Computer models are art, not science. There is absolutely no theoretical way to estimate the contribution of co2 to the GHE, and all "science" today is based on correlations. Check the correlation of [co2] vs temps for the period 1950 -1980 : negative, ie increased co2 must lead to cooling, if you're willing to equate correlation with cause & effect....The GHG Effect is theoretical with zero experimental evidence to support (or reject) it. [h2o] differences small? Compare deserts to rain forest please. Compare cloudy days & nites to cloudless. Of course there ae huge differences and huge effects......My point about anecdotes is that young people are no longer educated in school, but indoctrinated. They fail to question the teachings of the masters even when those run contrary to their own experiences. That's called belief on faith alone-- the very definition of religion and antithetical to science. .Again, check that energy budget graph posted above and find the absorption spectra of the various atm gases: ….O2 & n2 are 99% of the atm and its ave. temp is `288degK. They can only be warmed from 0 deg to 288 by absorption of visible light or by conduction from the heat of the surface, and there isn't that much energy subtracted by the O & N from the sunlight. Most of their temp is gained by conduction-- a fact miscalculated by the Kiehl & Trenberth study because it wouldn't fit the narrative to say otherwise. Error bars. Find an honest site that shows the historical temp records with error bars. You can draw a straight horizontal line and remain within the error bars throughout its course, ie-- statistically no differences in temps "measured" by proxy, at least after the great warming that occurred 12-15000 y/a or for the geologic record going back to the Cambrian... ..Check the temp record for the last 2000 yrs: a total range of only 1 degC. Using the often stated approximation of 1 SD is about 1/4th of the range of measurements, then no temps fall outside +/- 2 SD of the average, ie-- ~ 67% chance that all temp changes for the period are due merely to random variation about the mean. Before we let dictatorial govt regulations force us to return to an 1880s lifestyle with an inability to feed 7.5B people at a cost estimated to be $4 QUADrillion (that's 50x the Gross WORLD Product), we probably ought to make sure we have the science right....and we're not even close to that.

Ok. Sorry to hear that you have lost your interest. Is there particular reason why you choose to blame that on the member's of this forum?

! Moderator Note This has been split into a mainstream physics discussion. No speculation allowed.

Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality:

Technically, hydrogen can behave as either a halogen or an alkali metal, though it fits neither category completely and tends to be more of the latter. I would say one of main differences, and probably the most important one, between it and the halogens is in the fact that hydrogen only has an incomplete s orbital. This means that in its ground electronic configuration it only has 1 valence electron. Halogens have incomplete p orbitals, and have 7 valence electrons. A halogen is much more able to grab one single electron to fill its outter valence orbitals than it is to lose 7. Hydrogen, having only one valence electron, can go either way, but prefers to lose one. Couldn’t tell you why losing one is more energetically favoured than gaining one, though I guess it could be due to an extra electron resulting in additional repulsive forces (or maybe not, I’m no physicist).

+1 for confirming what I thought. And, of course, you would have also got +1 if you had explained that I was wrong!

Yup I'm done. You've officially killed my drive for physics. Thanks for the encouragement Go fuck yourselves.