exchemist

If I were to post Newton's laws of motion and then sign off with "Food for thought", I'd expect a bit of criticism. Yes I agree with your points, but it is all conventional stuff. I am suggesting it would be more interesting to think about the economic challenges of today than go over old debates, long since decided.

Hardly. These observations have been standard stuff for most of my lifetime (I'm 68). That's why you find the better run economies in Europe tend to practice a form of mixed economy, sometimes referred to as social democracy. In short, people have learnt what to take from the ideals of socialism and blend those with regulated market economic mechanisms to get the necessary feedback from consumer to producer. What has become equally clear over the last couple of decades is that inadequately regulated market mechanisms can also fail to deliver for citizens. The water and railway companies in Britain are examples, as is the health system in the USA. What we are also now seeing, with the new transnational IT entities such as Amazon, or Zuckerberg's empire, is that it is becoming a struggle to prevent the development of international monopolies which hand an unacceptable degree of control to producers, while disempowering consumers, just as much as any state-planned enterprise in the old USSR. It seems to me issues like these are the real food for thought nowadays.

Don't be a jerk. That is not what I said at all. What is irritating and unacceptable is for you to ask a raft of questions that are stupid , AND then insist that "we" investigate them, as if they are in some way profound or unanswered as yet. The questions you have started asking, in profusion, halfway through this thread, suggest a complete lack of understanding of physics, totally inconsistent with the level at which you started the thread. You are screwing around with us.

I don’t understand your point. Obviously there is a lot of year to year variation due to other factors, as the spiky nature of the graph indicates. So equally obviously, looking at the difference between a trough in one year and a peak 35 years later is going to tell you nothing about any long term trend. All it tells you is there other factors that can obscure the trend in the short term. But we know that just from looking at the graph. So why would anyone do that?

Now you are throwing out even more nonsensical questions. If you read any article on the Big Bang theory it will explain that the early universe was denser, i.e. more matter in a more confined space, than today. So what's all this about whether it can hold the same number of atoms? You don't need "energy" to "cross space". Space does not inhibit particles from passing through it. You are suddenly writing as though you have no grasp of any physics at all. It's absurd of you to reel off a list of dumb questions and airily state that we should "investigate all this". Ballocks! All we should do is get you to sit down and learn some damned physics.

Sure. But given that moving ships off RFO is a hard thing to do, I was arguing that high S fuel was actually better than low S, from a climate change viewpoint. Ships eventually need a non carbon fuel but that involves a dramatic shift to something like ammonia, on which the engine builders are doing a lot of work these days, I understand. Meanwhile they burn low S RFO, or distillate MDF, which gives us the worst of all possible worlds, it seems to me. But I retired from all that 10 years ago so I may be out of date.

I remember this from my time in Shell. The sulphur in residual fuel oil burnt as bunker fuel used to be as high as 3-4%. A lot of SO2 was ejected with the exhaust, which oxidised to sulphate aerosol, which has an atmospheric cooling effect - through scattering, I think. The move to cut down pollution has reduced the S content in marine bunkers significantly. (It actually caused some unforeseen problems with cylinder lubrication in low speed engines, which was a headache for people like me, but that's another story.) I remember arguing with engine builders that high S was actually a help to combat climate change, but they said the politics of it would never allow them to make that case in public. How interesting (and not in a good way) that this is now a measurable effect.

This now reads like a "Gish gallop". You seem to have run up the Jolly Roger and to be throwing as many wrong ideas out at once as you can, perhaps with the object of defeating attempts to correct you. What's all this about galaxies disintegrating? Who says matter was "created out of nowhere"? Have you read the evidence for the expansion of the universe? How would you account for that evidence if there were no expansion? As for why do we, the human race, exist when cosmological conditions are, er, favourable for us to exist, that is a bit of a silly question, surely? At the moment you remind me more of a seagull than a parrot. Do you want to slow down, take things one at a time and have a discussion we can all learn from? Or are you anxious to move on quickly to some crank agenda of your own, hence all this rubbish in your latest post?

No of course not. "Presumably" is a term I use to indicate something is what I think, while acknowledging I am far from expert on cosmology, so I advance my remarks tentatively. It's not my model or my speciality. You have to be careful, I think, with "the average effective speed of light." I thought you already understood the light travels towards Earth at c throughout, but the distance over which that light has to travel is increasing as it goes, as @Genady had already said. I'm wondering if it may be useful in this discussion to distinguish between comoving distance and proper distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances I have the feeling this may be where the confusion is occurring. But as I say I am not a cosmologist. There are others here better qualified to steer you through what the theory actually says.

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably.

OK, so you seem to be seeing this the same way as in @Genady's explanation then, viz. travels at c, but through a space that is itself expanding, so the distance stretches during its travel.

I’m just a chemist, but isn’t there a problem with your notion of the “effective speed” of light? Surely the speed of light is independent of the relative speeds of emitter and receiver, is it not? So for rapidly receding objects (relative to us) what happens is the speed of light still reaches us at c, but it is just red shifted. In which case your escalator analogy would appear to be misplaced.

Quite. Also often the case with “People’s” and “Democratic”, as in People’s Republic of China or German Democratic Republic.

Seems strange behaviour for a person sign up to a club - and then immediately start complaining about the rules they've just agreed to.

Perhaps it should rather read: "Admit a right one.".........

Not at all. But a club is free to make rules of discourse for its members to abide by. That has no impact on anyone’s rights of free speech.

In scientific theories, all “truth” is provisional. Science deals in predictive models, not absolute truth.

No one is stopping you marching up and down Piccadilly, or Madison Ave, with this stuff on a placard and a loudhailer. So your free speech rights are not infringed in any way. But there is no reason why a science forum can't have its own rules of membership, which put some constraints on the type of stuff it allows to be shown on its discussion boards. You are not the first to make the mistake of confusing legal rights to free speech with membership rules on a forum.

You have misunderstood me. I am referring to the lack of context for the quoted remark of Casey. Without context, we have no way to know what CIA programme he may have been referring to, whether it was a joke, or intended ironically, whether he was being sarcastic, or what. This is the trouble with quote-mining. So, in the absence of such further information, it makes little sense to ask us whether we agree or disagree with what Casey is reported to have said, 40 years ago.

Bye bye.😁

OK. This post enables us to form certain conclusions about you and your ideas. I'm out.

My profile is visible if you care to look it up. I answered the thread OP in post 2 as clearly as I was able. (I did include a joke, mind you.)

Please (1) post details of the trials you have carried out, (2) explain why you think LED light has an impact on the layers of the atmosphere and (3) explain why altering the layers in some way would reduce the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Experience: people that can't communicate coherently often can't think coherently, I have found.

A good tip for clear thinking and expression is to communicate in complete sentences, not in half sentences trailing off with "........... ". That way lies slack thinking and, if you're not jolly careful, pet theories.😀 You are not thinking clearly here. "Even light" says nothing whatsoever about the permanence or otherwise of black holes. Or, if you think it does, you need to explain why you think it says that, since it is far from obvious.