swansont

It could, in that it is not impossible, but it’s not a practical solution. Can you think of (and post) the pros and cons, or do you think that just SHOUTING is going to convince anybody? There are reasons we stopped using wood to fuel steam engines to power trains. The limitations of that mode still exist. Can you think of some? Practical implies you’ve done some sort of analysis to show how the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but you’ve not shared this information. There are reasons we went away from animals, too.

That’s not what I asked.

Biden was attending a NATO meeting this week. Trump is the one who hadn’t been seen in public for 10 days until his rally at his golf course. Can you stop peddling propaganda? We? Did you answer my question about whether you are able to vote in the US?

And coal has a 50% higher energy density than wood, which is a reason it was adopted. You can’t be serious, suggesting we use wood for aviation.

No credible discussion of the topic would refer to the center of the BB.

I skipped this one earlier. US residential electricity bills have been basically flat for the last decade, when adjusted for inflation. (There has been a couple percent decline over that span) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61903 That would include any increased usage from having to run the AC more. Almost all US new planned generation is carbon-free https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/ None of this happened overnight, nor are zero-carbon goals going to be met tomorrow, but there was no reasonable expectation that it would be. We’re in the middle of an energy revolution. Technology isn’t the problem. Though soggy panties might be clouding the judgement of some. Impediments are political, so solving that problem means voting for people who will work toward solutions rather than against them.

But the redshift is pretty much isotropic, as is the CMBR. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that would lead to abandoning the idea that the universe is isotropic, nor a mechanism that would lead to that situation.

Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that.

That's not how this works. You can't show up, stir up shit, and then tell someone else to do the analysis. It's more nuanced than that, but the main point here is that the rules say "Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

I’m skeptical. I think nothing actually changes, from a scientific standpoint.

If truth contradicted itself it would not be true. True statements are true seems like a tautology.

US gas prices are quite a bit lower than they were ~10-12 years ago, adjusted for inflation, when they were around $5 a gallon https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1238-may-16-2022-average-nationwide-monthly-gasoline-price-was-highest There was a dip in 2020 when nobody was driving because of COVID lockdowns Currently about $3.50 per gallon for regular according to https://gasprices.aaa.com Energy is always a limited respurce Always going to be the case Always going to be true. You mentioned a crisis. Do you have an analysis to back this up? I’ve seen calculations about how much area would be needed for solar to provide all our electricity, and it’s not all that big. Yes, unicorns don’t exist, either. That’s not an energy problem, as such. That’s a perception problem. Maybe we could have more analysis and less fear mongering?

! Moderator Note You need to post the discussion points. Just posting a video is insufficient. Stop being lazy and actually make your point, in writing.

It’s Pavlov. You take some description and repeatedly equate it with bad, evil things, so you get the response just by dropping the word. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. CRT. DEI. Woke. Odds are excellent that the ones salivating can’t define the terms. They just “know” it’s something bad.

The notion that electrons are not identical has experimental ramifications; the Pauli Exclusion principle is based on them being identical. Atoms would not work as we know they do if electrons were distinguishable. Other parts of this are philosophy, like interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to think that electrons going through a double slit are thinking about what to do but still follow the rules of QM you can do that, but make no mistake, there’s no science in it. For it to be science you’d have to be able to quantitatively predict some result, and something better than (or not covered by) existing science. So, as I said, it’s philosophy, and to my mind, a rather useless implementation of it. It’s Oprah-Winfrey-ism. “You get consciousness! And you get consciousness!” and an illusion of progress while nothing at all is different with actual understanding.

! Moderator Note There is no need to SHOUT and iNow’s critique is spot-on. Do better. Is that what they said? You need to be far more specific about what you think the problem(s) is/are.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted.

Daniel Dux has been banned as a sockpuppet of Engr.Daniel Grossman and Astrogeomanity

! Moderator Note If you developed this, you must be Daniel Grossman, who has been banned. Bye.

Repeating it doesn’t make it true. We can study how much pain someone is in and effectiveness of drugs, even though it’s subjective. As TheVat notes, we have language.

Was it pure lead? It could have been an alloy; AFAICT adding a little copper, tin or antimony makes it harder and you don’t generally find pure lead in nature.

Yes, it does. Science requires objective results and rigor (falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) If you think there is something non materialistic going on, you’re doing religion. You can study it in a measurable, objective way, too. I responded to something I quoted (“humans are not special, consciousness might be”) so your confusion is…confusing. If everything is conscious, then consciousness is ordinary. Not special. Nope. Creationism is religion, not science. I have no interest in diving into this quagmire. It doesn’t belong in a science discussion.

No the point is that labels don’t matter; they don’t change how things work, or look. You can’t study consciousness? If I Googled for scientific studies of consciousness, I would find nothing? Surely you jest. If everything is conscious, then no, it is not. That was a point I made not long ago. The parts are not interacting? How does it stay intact? If atoms are conscious, how can a table not be? The same interactions are present. What is the “clear unity of purpose” that a plant has? What is its goal? Again, these sound like creationist talking points.

How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang?

The whole “we don’t know where the mind resides” narrative reminds me of discussion of ufo/aliens, where “it’s unidentified” is erroneously equated to “it’s aliens” and creationism, where “we don’t definitively know how life arose” is erroneously equated to “goddidit” It’s a bad script to follow.