swansont

Everybody makes mistakes. But as a general rule the people that are resident experts and mods are the sort that will acknowledge them when they are pointed out (and there are others, to be sure, who behave this way). So it's not that it's forbidden to disagree — it's not a problem to point out mistakes, if you're sure it's a mistake. I think the "I need time to understand this because it doesn't make sense" is a good response, as would be phrasing an inquiry as a question to get more information. If there was an error, then the poster has a chance to re-assess their earlier response.

It's also impossible to have a system where nothing changes (at the quantum level), so isn't this all moot? The "nothing changes" idea has to be applied to a very small system, which is making the argument that time isn't a universal concept, and I don't think that's the argument people want to be making. Even though time is relative, if it exists it's got to exist everywhere (all places in all frames), or you have to come up with a good explanation of why it wouldn't.

A) "it's not half" in no way implies it's 100%, or even close B) The second quote is not mine, so it doesn't matter what it says explicitly in terms of my statement. And my position is that at this point, we are beyond litigating this nonsense. At some point you have to stop re-inventing the wheel and move on to bigger things. If you want to have the discussion you need to educate yourself on the basics. I should not have to defend that the earth is a sphere, that astrology is not a real effect, or that AGW is the scientific consensus. We reach a point where the evidence is vast, and if you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show it. And if you are unaware, it's up to you to fill the ignorance hole. There's plenty of discussion on the subject. No, it's a fact based on what I have seen. If there were a legitimate alternative scientific explanation, we would be seeing scientific discussion exploring it. It's not there. Instead what we get is what happened earlier in this thread: "there's a guy who has good arguments against AGW" "What are the arguments?" <crickets> Well, no.

I don’t see how you go from “it’s not 50-50” to conclude I am saying it’s 100%. It will never be 100%. There are scientists who doubt relativity, and others who question QM. But that doesn’t mean there is a controversy. The weight of evidence in favor coupled with objections raised lacking merit. Or, as I suggested earlier - flat-earthers exist. Do I need statistics on them, or is the science enough?

Almost like clockwork

Understandable. One situation where you get single atoms is in optical cavities, but you don't typically get pictures of them because the only optical access is for the confining light. Also that traps for neutral atoms tend to not be as deep as for ions, so it's easier to kick the atoms out, such as from collisions with background atoms. Ions can be confined for a lot longer. For some experiments it doesn't matter if you use ions, but specifically for atomic radius, as I noted, you get a different answer for ion vs neutral.

"photo, Single Atom In An Ion Trap" I had specified the difficulty is with neutral atoms. But if it's easy, go ahead and do it. 😉 There is the theoretical basis, and there is also no need for you to have a single atom. You can have a collection of them as long as they are not interacting with each other very much, and/or the interactions tell you something about the wave function. How would you measure it? (the underlying point here is that measurement requires a reaction or interaction of some sort)

What specific part of the constitution, or federal law (as applied to impeachment), specifies this? That's not what this says (nor does the linked article on martial law in the US. From that link:) 'Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."' Pretty specific that a rebellion or invasion must occur in order to suspend Habeas Corpus. And that's not the same as "full control of everything" You said "full control of everything to the executive branch." which is not backed up by your links. When people tell you you're wrong about something, it's disingenuous to point to some other thing and claim you were right, and that your words are being twisted.

! Moderator Note Discussion of Boltzmann brains has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121007-boltzmann-brains-split-from-spacetime-is-doomed/

! Moderator Note If you're going to link to a source, actually link to the source, i.e. an article that discusses the support for your idea. IOW, we need a title and page numbers, not just the section of the library where you can find the book. note: discussion has been split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119374-spacetime-is-doomed/

There's a "both sides"? That's one of the problems, as iNow has already pointed out. This isn't a "both sides" issue, from a scientific perspective. It's not a matter of half of the scientific community supporting one position while the other half supports another. It's not a matter of two distinct results that don't statistically overlap, so you can't be sure which method/answer is correct (and even then, such situations typically don't deny that there is an effect in the first place) This is a flat-earth type issue at this point. But that's not the end of the investigation, and not the justification for the conclusion. Scientists looked for the causation and modeled it, which is what scientists do. The only answer that fits our current situation is CO2 from human activity. To paraphrase Westley, anyone who says different is selling something.

As we say in the atomic physics biz, "one atom good, two atoms bad" Couple of things to unpack here. The first is, what radius? The electron's distance to the nucleus is not a fixed value. What you end up finding is the most probable distance, but it's not like it's a fixed value, it's an average value Second is how would you isolate a single neutral atom? That's not an easy thing to do. You can trap neutral atoms, but the same force that lets you trap them (e.g. radiation pressure) affects all of them, so it's not easy to interact with one atom but not another. Even so, people have done it, but it's not easy. And then after doing something hard to get the atom by itself, it's another level of complexity to do an experiment on the atom — interactions tend to send the atom out of whatever confinement it's in. That's one reason why measuring the separation of a covalent bond, or a lattice separation, are used. They are things that you can do. It's a lot easier to trap ions, but then you aren't finding out information about the atom when you do that. The radius of an ion tends to be bigger or smaller, depending on whether you've added or removed an electron.

What is your prediction of what would happen?

Which you called "good arguments" And it's not possible that he is ignorant? That as a geophysicist, he is just running outside of his lane when it comes to climate change?

I don't know either, seeing as how you brought him up and denied he's a liar in the same post. There was no mention of him in this thread prior to that. Nobody called him a liar. Prior to your mention, his name did not appear for more than ten years, according to our search function. Two in 2007, and one in 2006. Absent the science, I don't see how you can claim this.

Who claims they are good? OK, Cynic earlier referred to a correlation, or lack thereof, in one graph. A graph of solar activity vs temperature was posted by StringJunky. For the last ~60 years, there is an anti-correlation between solar activity and temperature. Activity peaked in the late 50s at ~1361 W/m^2 and is now half a Watt lower, and yet temperature has been climbing all that time. What is Courtillot's explanation for this? That's not how this works. You're making a claim and then not backing it up in any way.

This would only matter if CO2 is the only way to cause warming, and people were claiming it was responsible in all those cases .

other than the questionable wording, which implies scientists are seeking a particular result, yes. Science is all about building models to explain how nature behaves. No. If this were true there’s a lot of science you’d have to reject (large parts of astronomy and evolution, for example) You can test elements of the model separately, in lab conditions. what is different when the data is for global consideration, vs local? If it’s 20 C outside, is it no longer that temperature if we want to apply it to a global measurement? No, it’s not reasonable, if you are doing science. You aren’t being skeptical, though.

Angelo has been banned as a sockpuppet (Menan, Polinski)

! Moderator Note Nobody here has claimed otherwise, and support for claims can’t just be a video - you need to summarize the material here (rule 2.7) Further, Einstein being wrong about one thing does not mean he was wrong on any other specific issue. IOW, a rebuttal of one claim does not rebut a different claim.

We aren’t responsible for what happens elsewhere. That has not happened here. I checked all of your threads.

An oscillating electric field is not the same thing as photons. Photons will be emitted, but that’s separate.

Why is this in speculations?

! Moderator Note No, nobody has done that to you. Please stay on topic.

! Moderator Note Please do not post articles in their entirety. That violates copyright rules.