Edtharan

The best way to think of it is what would happen if the ring disappeared. What would occur is that you would continue in a straight line, not in a curve (if you ignore the curve you would have as you fell to the ground ). Now to see what direction this is, draw a circle on a piece of paper. Now get a ruler and place it so that as it moves past the circle it just touches the edge it touches the edge of the circle (a bit like the stroke in the letter "p"). This line is called the tangent, so any velocity you would have in this case is called the tangential velocity (simple really). The reason you "feel" a force pushing against you in the ride, is that you are not strictly speaking moving in a circle. What is occurring is that you have a sideways velocity (the tangential velocity) and as the ring spins, this sideways velocity brings you in contact with the ring. As you can not move through the ring, you feel the ring pushing on you. DO show this (back to the paper), with the circle you drew earlier, draw another line parallel to the tangent line you drew, but closer to the centre of the circle (not too close, just have it inside the circumference of the circle). Now this line is more like the line a person travelling in the ride would take (as you are inside the ring, not outside or sitting on top of it). You will be able to see that the new line collides with the edge of the ring. On the ride, this would push the rider around so that they did not pass through the ring, but moved at the tangent to where the line intersects the ring's circumference.

Atmospheric warming is not a good indicator of temperature increase due to global warming. This is because atmospheric warming is mainly caused by energy input to the system, rather then its retention. However, the temperature of the oceans are a much better indicator. This is not just surface temperature (again much more dependant in the incoming energy than the retained energy), but the temperature of deeper water. This is also the reason we don't see a direct increase in atmospheric temperature as soon as greenhouse gasses rise. Water has a very high heat capacity. It can hold a lot of energy before it rises much in temperature. In fact, increasing the temperature of water, increases the rate of evaporation, which reduces the energy (and temperature) of the water. Also, water takes a long time to cool down too. This acts as a kind of buffer for fast thermal changes. The data that you should be using should be the average temperature of the oceans. I may be missing something here, but you seem to be comparing the average temperature to the average temperature. How then can there be a difference? I mean if you are comparing the average temperature (of say 9 o'clock), to the average temperature of 9'oclock, of course there won't be a difference. Or are you comparing the current temperature at 9 o'clock as compared to the average of all years at 9 o'clock? Even that would not show a significant increase in temperature as the current temperature would be factored in too. What it should be is the average temperature of to day as compared to the average temperature in the past (or say in 10 year chunks). Also this should be a yearly average, not seasonal average as seasonal average can be highly variable. You see, taking a bunch of statistic, calculating an average (and not really describing what averages you are using) can lead to incorrect results. Generally in statistics, this does not make too much of a problem, but with GW, the source of the data (not the place you got the data from, but what it actually is that the data is about) makes a big difference. As you have said, you have purchased the data from that ABM, and so I understand that you might not be able to give out the raw data (copy right or whatever), could you do this analysis on it: Calculate the average temperature across an entire year at the specific times of the day (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm). So you would have something like (1960:Midnight:Average temperature 16.000 degrees, 1961:Midnight:Average Temperature: 17 degrees, etc) for each time period (midnight, 3am, 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm).

Well what we know about what causes the Auroras completely contradicts this. We know that the auroras are caused by charged particles (form the sun), being channelled by earth's magnetic field, and slamming into the atmosphere. This is backed up by the fact that we can track these charged particles when they are near the Earth and when these increase the Aurora increase too. Experiments have also been able to repeat this situation (in minature) and reproduce the results seen. Theory, observation and experiment all agree that the Aurora is created by charged particles from the sun hitting the Earth's atmosphere. Although Halley might have been a good astronomer, he was no geologist. Observations and theory (experiments are hard to do mind you) disprove Halley's claims. On what data did he base these claims on? If we, today could not show this, then how, using the technology of Halley's time could he have proven this (and where has all the data gone?). If there was any proof of this, there would be data available. Also if the earth was hollow there would not be enough mass to account for the gravity we experience. I did read your Blog, but if there was a massive object in the earth, this would effect the gravity inside and pull all matter towards it. You would not be able to stand on the inside surface and would fall in towards the Massive Object, and therefore could not be an explanation. Also the tensile strength of all the rock in the outer layer (the crust) would not be good enough to withstand such massive object and the crust would fall in. this would then eliminate any "hollow" in the Earth, which thereby also contradicts the claims.

Actually you are misunderstanding what "Now" really means. Now is dependant on the observer. Now for you, is different from Now for me. If I was standing on Alpha Centauri (well a space ship in orbit around it). My Now would reach you 4 years after I experienced it. There fore what is Now for you is Different from the Now for me. Such as it is with the high speed, return trip to Saturn. An absolute "Now" has nor real meaning in the context of Relativity (which is what really occurs in the universe). To give another illustrations: Gravity also causes this time dilation. The closer you are to a gravitating object, the slower time runs. This means that your feet are travelling slower through time than is your head (but it is only a very small difference), but you aren't ripped apart, or the actions of your feet are not out of synchrony with your thoughts. This is because there is no universal "Now". This time dilation due to the distance from a gravitating source has also been measured with atomic clocks, so is real. If there was a universal "Now", then you feet would be lagging behind your head and would therefore disappear from the "Now" that your head is experiencing. Which would, to most people, be rather uncomfortable. You are getting confused between the every day experience that seems like there is a universal "now" and the reality that Relativity predicts (and has been measured) that the time dilation does really exist, and accelerating, or being close to a gravitating object does really slow down your movement through time. Even to me it does not seem that it makes sense. but experiments do agree with the theory, and there is no reason that we, in our limited experience with things the way they are here on Earth (only moving at a fraction of the speed of light), that we should have evolved to be able to comprehend the way things are in relativistic situations. It may seem wrong, but we have to rely on the reality check that is scientific experiment.

Yes that would be true. But the collisions in the plasma will still accelerate the electrons faster than protons or neutrons (or charged atoms) and therefore will loose electrons more than protons. The magnetic fields created from the charged plasma orbiting the blac khole might further accelerate the electrons.

Unfortunately there have been experiments that contradict your thoughts here. Take two identical atomic clocks. These two clocks will keep time with each other to a tiny fraction of a second. Put one in a fast plane and the other is to remain stationary at the air port. Fly the clock in the plane at top speed around the world. When you get back the two clocks will show different times. If they keep perfectly synchronous time, how then can there be a difference between the times, unless one (the one on the plane) has travelled forwards through time? It is not down to our perception of time as we have a device that measures time in a way that is not connected to our perceptions (ie they are counting the emissions of photons from a reliably regular source). That clock in the plane has really experienced a different rate of time than the clock left at the airport. It has travelled through time. Now, the equations that explain what light is and how it behaves (and this theory matches with all experiments don so far) state that light must travel at the same speed for all observers, regardless of speed, or any other factor. This means that the distance that I see light travel and that you see the same light bean travel in the same (local to the observer) time means that something must change to allow this. The only way this can occur is that distance is shortened for the observer that is travelling (in the direction of travel). So as you travel faster time gets stretched out and distance shrinks.

One way that a black hole could aquire a charge is because of collisions in the accretion disk. As matter swirls around in the accretion disk it emits high energy photons (x-rays). These high energy photons could knock electrons form atoms, ionizing the accretion disk. This ionized accretion disk will still have the particles collide. As lighter particles in the disk (electrons) will end up with a higher velocity than heavier particles (protons and ionized atoms), these electrons will more likely have an velocity higher than the escape velocity of the accretion disk (not the black hole its self). This will leave a net positive charge in the accretion disk, that will eventually be transferred to the black hole as the matter in the disk falls into the hole. This should mean that black holes will generally have a positive charge to them.

Ok, I have been thinking about an experiment that would "prove" that energy has come from nothing and gone back to nothing, but has definitely existed for a short time. Here is the set-up: You have an electron gun that can fire single electrons at precise velocities. This electron gun is aimed at a negatively changed plate with a hole in it. This situation will allow you to fire the electrons (with precise velocities) at the hole in the plate. If the electron is travelling fast enough it will be able to overcome the repulsion from the negatively charged plate and pass through the hole. If the electron does not have enough velocity it will be deflected back towards the electron gun. Now what you do is tune the electron gun to fire electrons with enough velocity that they will almost make it through the hole, but will not have enough velocity to pass through it. The closer you can get it to the point where it would be able to pass through the better. Now what you need to do is set up a detector on the other side of the charged plate that will be able to detect the electrons and also measure the velocity of them. Now if Energy can't come from nothing, then you would not expect to find any electrons make it passed the charged plate (as you haven;t given them enough energy in the first place). However, to account for outside sources of energy giving the electrons an extra push (say a stray photon striking the electron and giving it the energy needed), you use the detector on the other side of the charged plate to measure the velocities of any electrons that are detected. If the velocity of these electrons is enough to make it through the charged plate, then you can exclude them as they will have interacted with an outside source of energy and are not the particles that you are looking for. Occasionally you will detect an electron that seems to have travelled through the hole in the plate that, when it's velocity is measured, does not have the energy/velocity to make it through. You can calculate the precise velocities, of the electrons emitted by the electron gun, that the electrons should have when the reach the detector, so it would allow you to account for any unknown source of energy (as those electrons would have different velocities). Where does these electrons that make it through with velocities too low to do so get the energy to make it passed the charged plate? Where does this energy go? Quantum mechanics explains it by the fact that there are random and uncaused fluctuations in the energy of the system. This is represented by the Uncertainty Principle. It means that the electron "borrowed" some energy from nothing, and then later "paid" it back into nothing. This experiment proves that the energy could not have come from an unknown source as if it did the electron would have a high enough velocity to pass the barrier. The electrons that are detected and do not have enough velocity to pass the barrier must have got the energy to do so from nothing and then paid it back (because every other situation is accounted for). QM also states that the nearer the electrons velocity is to the velocity that would allow it to pass through the hole in the charged plate, the more electrons you will detect on the other side that don't have the necessary velocity. The further the velocity is from the critical velocity the less electrons will be detected. The probability of the electrons that should be detected can be calculated quite precisely and experimental data does match this. There are even devices that you can buy (not sure of the price or general availability, but they are available) called "Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes" that use this exact phenomena to operate. this really does occur and it disproves the claim that something can not come from nothing.

Well .light is just an electromagnetic wave. It is an electric and magnetic field oscillating back and forth perpendicular to each other and to the direction of travel. there does not need to be any other dimension other then the normal 3 involved.

Don't give up. Science works because people are willing to question what is already believed to be true. You speculations are, therefore a necessary part of good science. The other part of this is that if evidence disproves a theory, then you either come up with a new theory, or change the current one to fir the new data. So keep up with the questioning and just re-examine your theory and try to get it to fit the data that has already been collected about subatomic physics. Some of the most important discoveries in science have come about due to the failure of a theory (the Michelson-Moorly experiment comes to mind). Even the theories of gravitation that Issac Newton came up with have been proven to be wrong.

Ok my proof is the temperature 0 Kelvin. This can not be reached. Why? Because there is always some energy that causes the object to vibrate, even if you eliminate all other sources of energy. What is causing this energy, it is not from something. If it is not from something, then it is form nothing. Therefore this partial is being disturbed by energy that has come from no possible source. It is has come form nothing. Please note this is not adding energy to the universe, but is just causing the particle to be disturbed by random jostling of virtual partials. These virtual partials are a result of the uncertainty principle. They don't have a source. There is nothing that "produces" them. They come from nothing. You can;t see them directly, but you can see their effects on the cooled particles (the reason we don;t see this at higher temperatures is that the normal jostling of the particles swamps the data). QM theory states that these jostling do not come from any source and are uncaused. If this was not true, then much of QM would break down. It is not for lack of understanding. The theory specifies that these are uncaused and come from nothing. It is not through failing to find a source and then declaring that no source exists, it is that the theory states that no source exists so therefore no experiment will be able to find one (and not for lack of trying). You have it backwards, the theory came first that required there to be no source for that energy, and then the experiments were constructed to disprove it. They are still looking, and they still haven't found it or any evidence that there are sources.

There is a way to do it. You will need to have a vertical peg in the axle. You start winding the string one way around the axle, then wrap it (halfway) around the peg and you can now wind it the other way around the axle.

Ahh, ok I know what you are talking about. I have been on that kind of ride myself (I even operated one for a while). What I don't see is how having a model of an atom with the "spin" of the particles represented like that matches what we know of partical physics. As I said before, the "spin" of a particle is not like the spin of a ball. It is more like "Charge" on the particle (which can be either spin up or spin down) This spin is not movement in the classical sense (like a ball) and it is not in 3D (so there would not be a need for 3 rings in the first place - one set would be enough). A particle (like a quark) can not store energy in it spin (it can't spin faster for instance). You can change it's direction, but it doesn't slow down and then change direction (like a ball). They also use a term for quarks call "Flavour" but this does not mean that they actually have a taste. When scientists were discovering about quarks, they need terms to describe the properties of these objects. These properties have no analogue in the world that we know and understand, but are mathematical properties of the theory. Spin is just one of these properties. They do not literally "spin" as we would understand it and if your theory is describing some property of the particles that is literally spinning, then you are not describing the property that is currently called "Spin" of the fundamental particles.

But the energies involved in the creation and annihilation of Matter/Antimatter is huge (compared to the sensitivity of the equipment we have). When you normally annihilate matter and antimatter it produces two gamma ray photons. It is hard to miss these. And if you repeat the experiment then this will also allow you to detect any that just didn't happen to hit a detector (or got absorbed by part of the detector housings). So any lack of knowledge of this kind of missing energy would leave some big and obvious holes in the experiment that would easily be picked up by any competant experimenter. Then you have misunderstood what I was saying. QM states that there are uncaused and random fluctuation that occur in these fields. These can exist for very brief times and then must be cancelled out. In fact QM has a very tight relationship between the amount of energy and the time it can be "borrowed" for. The greater the energy the shorter the period of time and is encapsulated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) where as the quantities are "Energy" and "Time". But the theory of QM does include where this comes from -> Nothing. It states that this energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing, but can have real effects (as in the Casimir effect). In the case of the Casimir effect the only explanation for the attraction of the plates is there is less potential for virtual photons (photos that get their energy from nothing and then return to nothing in a limited period of time) to exist between the plates that outside. It is the pressure of these virtual photons that causes the plates to move together. Although the pressure is caused by the virtual photons, the energy required for those photons to exist has come from nothing. So something (the movement of the plates) has come from nothing. It is real, it has been measured and no source capable of exerting that force has not be excluded from the experiment. Since there is no source for that energy, except the vacuum fluctuations that QM and the uncertainty principle states exists and the mathematics of these correlate with the observed data, then I can say with confidence (although I can't be 100% - but closer to 99.9999...% correct) that this is something from nothing. The theory fits, the data fits and no other outside effect of enough energy can not be accounted for or eliminated. Although the energy created by the uncertainty principle seems to violate the conservation of energy, it doesn't. There is strict limits on what it can do and how it occurs. And as the energy involved has to return to 0 after the interaction, there is no net gain or loss of energy from the universe, but for that brief period, there is more energy in the universe than there was before and after it.

Well by then it could be too late and we could be in for catastrophic climate changes. If the oceans heat up a bit, it could melt frozen methane deposits. These would then bubble to the surface. As methane is a green house gas (and far more potent than CO2), then this will massively enhance the greenhouse effect already in progress. Also as the permafrost melts this creates an area of land that reflect less sunlight (so more energy gets retained in the system) and also released frozen organic material (plants and such) that begin to break down and release CO2 and more Methane increasing the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As the ice caps melt this will also reflect less sunlight increasing the amount of energy retained. All these will occur if the temperature increases above a critical amount (which we are getting close to). If we are the cause of this increase, then we should take responsibility for the ecological damage and the damage to our own support systems (farming and that) that this will cause. This is reason enough to even attempt to reduce natural warming if we can, let alone preventing it being caused by our own actions. As I said above, we are close to a "Tipping" point in the temperature of the Earth where certain key event can lead to a runaway warming effect. Already there is detectable melting of the polar ice caps (the Arctic ice cap has shrunk so much that shipping lanes that would have once been locked in ice are now becoming available for actual oceanic travel) and the permafrosts in Siberia have shown noticeable reduction and increased CO2 emission). We have already had many years without much warming (this is going back to the beginnings of the industrial revolution and to the massive scale of atmospheric greenhouse gas emission from people). Also during this time there were other pollutions that would have kept "warming" in check. These, in much more recent times, have been reduced (as they also cause other problems and cause smog and respiratory diseases, etc). Also, even though we might not be experiencing "Warming", this does not mean that the energy is not being retained in the system and showing up as other climate changes (changed rain/precipitation patterns, changed storm/cyclone patterns, etc). Temperature increase is just 1 of many ways that global warming can effect the climate. You are looking for just 1 effect in what could dozens of different types of effect that can be either directly or indirectly caused by human induced global warming (through greenhouse gas emissions). In effect you are looking at you immediate surroundings and not seeing elephants and declaring that elephants don't exist. Just because you don't see any elephants in your immediate vicinity, does not mean that elephants don't exist. You are also failing to see the trees for the forest. You are taking a broad sample (not to mention data that can not be used to prove or disprove the average temperature is not rising - just the maximum and minimum temperatures) where as in fact this could be occurring in smaller areas and in other areas it could be decreasing (due to changes weather patterns blowing colder air into that region). So between irrelevant data and a lack understanding of what Global Warming really means, you analysis does not bear any relevance to the reality of weather Australia's average temperature is increasing or that Global Warming exists or not. The claims you are making can not be substantiated by you analysis as they have no bearing on it. As someone who works with statistic you should know that the average does not have a strong relation to the Maximum and Minimum values. You can even have a decrease in Max and Min values and still have an increase in the average as with these numbers: 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20 (average: 13.42857142) 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19 (average: 16) So your statistic can not be used to back up your claims. If you want to keep making the claims that Australia is not warming up (which would be the average temperature), then you should use the correct data and statistic. Otherwise you should abandon your claims.

Well not really. Spin (in the quantum mechanical sense) is not like the spin of a top (or water down a plug hole). It is more akin to charge than "actual" rotation. Spin the QM sense can be quite weird too. Some particle require spins of more than 360 degrees (some even with 720 degrees) to reach the same orientation as when you started. So QM spin is not the same as "water down a plug hole" or a basketball kind of spin. They don't "Suck up" heat. Increasing the energy of a fundamental particle does not alter its spin state at all (except for maybe changing it from spin up to spin down), but this doesn't "store" that energy like a battery does. So you analogies in this are completely wrong. Also for them to "spin in a 3D way(kinda like the 3 rings that spin on eachother)" they would need absolute positions. If you know the absolute positions of a particle, then you can not know the energy/momentum that it has. So this would mean that you could not determine that they were also moving in a ring as that would also require you to know their momentum absolutely (and it is impossible to know both absolutely). Usually they are drawn on paper that way because it is useful for our conceptualizing of them (as we have nothing in the macro scale world that even comes close to what these objects really are like - so it would be impossible to draw them as they really are). The best way to think of the fundamental particles are like a smeared out and blurred cloud. The best analogy I have heard for the disparity of the position/momentum for fundamental particles is of a pool table and a camera. If you imagine a pool/snooker table with balls whizzing around on it and the only way you can see anything on the table is to use a camera and take photos of it. If you set the camera for a slow shutter speed you can (say 1 second) you can get a picture of the table that shows the paths (but smeared out as the balls moved during that second) the balls took as the moved on the table. However, because the balls were at all points on the smeared paths within that image, you can't specify an exact position of any ball. However if you then change the shutter speed on the camera so that the camera has a fast shutter speed, then you could take another picture of the table. In this image you would have a very good idea where each of the balls are, but because the balls did not move much during this time the shtter was open, you can not determine the direction and speed that the balls are moving in. So you can either measure the position of the balls (fast shutter speed) or the momentum (slow shutter speed) of the balls, but you can not measure both at the same time (ie: the camera can not have both a fast and a slow shutter speed at the same time). In reality it is much more than this as it is a fundamental property of the particles interaction with other particles (that which makes up the detector and the rest of the universe) than do do with a camera's shutter speed.

I don't believe in those. To suggest that I do to present a counter argument is a logical fallacy (Ad hominum). If energy had entered the system, then it would have to go somewhere, there would be changes in other parts of the system. The energy needed to make an electron and positron is quite large and very easily detected as it disturbs the system. If you can't detect these signatures, then where would the energy from creating the particles have gone? Also you can infer these "virtual" particles do exist as they do have influence on the system (much less than they would if it was due to the energy from "real" particles). So yes, you can "detect" them, just not directly. Those "all-pervasive energy fields" might be there, but the energy that constitutes a disturbance in them (particles) is what I am talking about. What gives the energy to cause these disturbances? According to QM, then these "fields" are subject to random and uncaused fluctuations. These fluctuations do have an effect on real objects (they give use things like gravity and magnetism, etc) and the energy to cause them comes from nothing.

Actually Quarks are not just "stuck in side" protons and neutrons, they are the bits that make a proton and neutron. You can also have other particles made from quarks, not just neutrons and protons. The Electron has mass. It it didn't it would always move at the speed of light (like a photon). Since it doesn't, it therefore has mass. Also even objects without mass are effected by gravity. Light has no rest mass, and it is effected by gravity. So this also breaks down one of your initial premises. For pure speculation without any testing (experiments) it is a good attempt, but unfortunately, the objects you are trying to describe (quarks, electrons, etc) are quite well understood and experimental evidence contradicts you initial assumptions about them.

Not nessesarily. If it can be shown that, just once, QM allows this effect to occure it would invalidate his first preposition. According to the Casimire effect, this creation of photons from nothing causes an imbalance between the outside and inside of the cavity and results in anet force that pushed the plates together. So this is s demonstration of this creation from nothing effect of QM and hence it violates Choix's first law rendering his preposition false.

You can get something from nothing and somthing can return to nothing. In QM it allows a pair of particles to form (from nothing) and then anhialate with each other (returning to nothing). This violates your first rule. As you first rule is the basis of your theory, and has been shown to be an incorrect assumption, then your theory breaks down. When proposing preopsition (rules) it is important to check that those prepositions are indeed true. In this case your first preposition was shown to be incorrect. You logic and resoning might be impecable, but if your starting premises are incorrect, then you will come to incorrect results.

Yes, there would not be an imediate rise in surface temperature. Remember Global Warming was named before scientists really understood what would occure. Global Warming is about an increase in energy retained by the Earths atmosphere. At the time GW was named, the only result of this that was explored was that of temperature increase. We know now that this is just one of many differnet effects that this retention of energy will have on our climate. "Global Warming" is realy a catchy name for lots of climate disturbances that will be caused by the excess retention of energy caused by the increase of greenhouse gasses caused by our industries and lifestyles. Not just in the western societies, but all across the globe (although the industrialised nations are the biggest contributers). Even though the name global warming is kind of obsolete, as the results of greenhouse gass emissions on the climate does not solely increase temperature, nor does it mean that temperature increase will occure every where on Earth. The correct term should be "Global climate changes due to the retention of energy in the atmospheric and oceanic systems", but Global Warming is easier to say, and is generally know by most people.

If you were in free fall could you measure height by simple moving up and down? No. We can not move freely in time like we can space, but that does not mean that it dosen't have dimenstion or is not fundamental. Mass, spin, charge, etc are not dimensions, thay are not like distance at all. Distance is much more like Time than it is like Mass, Spin or Charge. To measure distance you need a ruler (of some kind). This ruler is made up of periods of distance. A watch is like a ruler. It marks out periods of time. A cesium atom in an atomic clock is just a very accurate watch. All it does is marks out periods of time. If a measure a distance with a ruler, then all I am doing is counting the atoms in the ruler to declare that a centimetre has been measured. I see no difference. If you accelerte to near the speed of light, time appeas to slow down (get streched out) and distance (in the direction of motion) is contracted. Einstien showed, mathematically, that this is geometrically equivalent to rotating sapce and time so that time becomes space and space becomes time. If space and time were not fundimental or equivalent then this could not occure and relitivity would fail. Scince relitivity has not failed, then one can assume that Einstien was correct about this. We can not move freely in time, like if you are in free fall you can't move freely in height. Yes you did travel in time. by accelerating and traveling fast (near light speed) to saturn, then slowing down, turning around, accelerating back and finally slowing down again, you will have traveled forwards in time slightly. This is why our watches would be out of sync. If all you did was slowly travel out to saturn and return, then our watches would not be out of sync. the same amount of time will have passed for both you and me, where as in the first one where you traveled near the speed of light, then you would have experienced less time than I have, thus you have traveled forwards in time. Even going slowly you will have traveled a small fraction of a second forwards in time, but this would be very hard to measure as it would be so small. Small though it is, it can be measured. An atomic clock placed on a plane and flown around the world had a different time (count of the radiation emmitted by the cesium atoms) than one left at the starting location. So if these readiation emmision events caused by the cesuim in the atomic clocks are regular, then the clock on the plane experienced less time than the one on the ground. Scince the clocks were identical, and the results do not rely on human perception (as we are just comparing the count of radiation events), thsi discrpeancy can not have been due to your proposition (of time being solely human perception) and it even disproves it. Are you saying that we do not move through tiem, that time does not occure? Yes the big difference between time and space is that we can more freely through space but not time. However, relitivty shows that time and space are closely related, so close in fact that you can rotate things so that time turns into space and space into time. Gravity is also another method to cause space and time to rotate into one another. Again, this has been demonstrated using atomic clocks. An atomic clock at the top of a tower and the botom of a tower wer left for a period of time (I think it was a week). The counts were compared (like the ones with the plane flying around the world) and the one at the base of the tower had a lower count than the one at the top of the tower. Now I mentioned above about how when in freefall you could not control your vertical position and how that was like time. Well gravity is realy the key here and it shows that by curving space into time and time into space can cause us to move. We are accelerated by gravity because it curve space into time and our motion through time becomes motion through space. That means we move towards the higher gravitational curve (towards the centre of gravity). In a black hole, this is taken to extremes. At the event horison we can not aviod moving towards the centre, no matter what we attemopt to do. At this point space and time are rotated 90 degrees into one another. We would be able to move freely in time (to a point: if we tried to move back to before the black hole formed, then it would curve time and space back to their original orientations and we could then not move freely through time again), but we could not move freely through space in the direction of motion (but side to side would be ok). So we would be in freefall in the balck hole and in that situation, space would be time and time would be space.

You should be taking to times from the Solar time, not daylightsaving times. This is because 9am the day before daylight savings starts is very different from 9an the day after daylight savings stars. And, scince ther is little regularity in the star and end of daylight savings times, this creates problems. Or have I got it wrong, and you "adjusted" by ignoring the 1 hour jump backwards/forwards that daylight savings causes in the clock times (as different to the Solar Time)? This is the current view on the situation. The effects (drought, storms, etc) are just that, effects that could be caused by the increased energy in the atmospheric and oceanic system. Mostly what you hear about is the various attempts at modeling what this increased energy will do (the storms, droughts, etc). The whole thing is rather simple: The sun gives us a failr steady amount of energy that enters Earth's atmosphere. This energy can leave the system by radiating it out into space. If something prevents this energy from leaving, then more energy is trapped in the system. Greenhouse gasses are known to prevent this energy from being radiated out into space, so this means that more enrgy must be retained by the system (it can't just disappear). Usually when sunlight strikes the ground or ocean, it warms it up. Part of it is reflected off coulds and doesn't make it down to the surface. Some of it is also reflected off the ground (this can then be re-reflected off clouds and back towards the ground too). A little bit of it is absorbed by the atmosphere. Once the energy is in the system it can't just vanish. It must go somewhere. The most simple thing that can happen to it, is that it warms the place up. It is already doing this by warming the ground or ocean. However, part of the way the atmosphere works it that as it warms up, it moves higher up and so take that heat away with it. The more energy that reaches the ground, the faster this will occure. This could mean that it occures fast enough to keep the temperature relitavly constant, or even provide a light cooling effect in the short term. The reason it will be short term cooling is that as the atmosphereic and ocianic systems retain this energy (heat), it begins to reach an equilibrium. once this equilibrium is reached, beteewn the atmosphere and the incoming energy, the execess energy can not be moved away by the atmospheric systems and you will start to see a rapid (relitivly speaking) rise in temperature. The convection currents in the atmosphere, cause by the warming of the surface underneath it will change the currents of air that move around the Earth. We don't notice these so much on the surface of the Earth, but these atmospheric currents of air can be very powerful (ask any airline pilot). These powerful air currents are responsible for moving the air laiden with water vapor from the oceans, and moving it over land (where it usually cools and pricipitates out as rain). If these wind current change, then this will cause the rain to fall in differnet places, bringing drout to some places, and rain to others. Land warms up mich faster than the oceans. When this occures, it will mean that the air does not cool enough to allow the rain to pricipitate out (or it doesn't occure as often). This means that less rain will fall, but as the oceans warm up too, this will eventually revert back to a more normal rain pattern. This may take hundreds of years to occure. So from this, we would expect a fall in the number of storms and cyclones early on in Global Warming. Also, depending on weather or not the transfer of energy occures faster the higher the ground temperature is, then we probably would not see a rise in the average maximum temperatures for some time, as there is not more energy incomeing, but just that the energy is not allowed to escape.

I am not sure what you mean by "Harvesting". Energy is not something you can just grab and stick in a bottle (if we could that would be the solution to most of the worlds energy problems). You have to convert it from one thing to another. To "Harvest the energy that is incomeing from the sun directly, we are talking about solar cells. But it is not the incoming energy that is increasing. The greenhouse gasses are preventing energy from escaping. The extra energy is already here and "sloshing" about in the various atmospheric and oceanic systems. To harvest this energy it must come from these systems. This means wind, wave, tide, etc powerstations. then if you were trying to prove that Australia is not being subject to global warming, you should not have then relied on these statistics that, by your admition above, don't have any relevence to the situation. I think that this is the reason nobody is taking you seriously. You are using stats that, even you admit, are not representitive of Australia's temperature increase or not. Yes, Global warming shows up as changes in weather patterns. Due to the nature of the atmosphere, we do expect variations to occure. These variations are "relitivly" unpredictable because of the chaotic nature of the atmosphereic systems. We can, usually in hind sight, determine what causes these variations in atmospheric phenomina, but it is not 100% accurate either. This causes major problems, as it makes it hard to seperate normal climactic variations from the exceptional variations caused by global warming. One expects that the yearly cycle of cyclones and hurricanes will show increases and decreases. This is normal. Even if global warming is occuring, we might still see a drop in the number of cyclones as this could be part of a long term cycle/variation in their number. but even if they are decreaseing, we might has a slow decrease due to global warming than what might have occured without GW. We are still in the early times of thesese kinds of analysis and theory. But even so, we are finding certain annomolies in the data that is being gathered and analised by the models. We still don't fully understand how storms form. We are fairly sure of the basics, but all the minor factors that are involved are still giving us trouble. Now you might not think that a minor factor is significant. But due to the chaotic nature of the climate system, small changes can lead to big differences in results. Which further compplicates the matter of trying to make accurate predictions. I don't have any data on it, but it is a resonable conclusion of increased energy in the atmospheric system. Wind patterns and strengths are determined by High and Low pressures (high pressures move towards low pressures). High and low Pressure cells are cause by the temperature of the atmosphere. As temperature rises due to GW, this increase will not be even, some areas will increase and other will decrease. So this creates greater differences in pressure between those areas, thus the winds will be stronger (but other effect might occure too, like shifting wind patterns, different rain fall as warmer air holds more emoisture than cold air, etc). The basics of a storm are quite simple to understand. First you have the energy from the sun heating the surface layers of the ocean. This in turn heats the atmosphere above it and also causes water to be evaporated. Scince warm air can hold more water than cold air, this warm air cell can hold quite a lot of water. As this air cools down at higher altitudes, it can no longer hold all the water. Some of it precipitates out as tiny water droplets, we call these clouds. Now for these water droplets to condense out of the air, they must release the energy that was used to evaportate them. This is usually as a light increase in air temperature, bu can also be as air movemnt (wind). As all this is occureing, the higher pressure of this warm air, start to move towards the cooler lower pressure air. As the warmer air encouters the cooler air, it releases more and more water as condensation, which in turn releases more and more energy to the air around it. The water droplets in the air begin to hit eachother and stick together forming larger and larger droplets. These larger droplets are held up by the riseing, warm air (warmed up by the release of energy as the water droplets condense out). Eventually the size of the droplets overcomes the ability of the riseing air to suport them and they fall as rain. If enough energy has been released, quickly enough, this is called a storm. In a storm situation the riseing air can push the waterdroplets so far up that they freeze. As these collide, the build up static charges which is discharged as lightning. This is a very simple explaination of what occurs in a storm, and as you might see from this, ther eis a lot of places where exccess energy could be "dumped", instead of just causeing a rise in surface temperatures. Infact, because of the fact that the higher the temperature, the faster it is transfered into water vapor by evaporation, the surface temperatures might even remain constant. The only direct way to prove or disprove that GW is occureing is to measure the amount of energy entering the system (Earth) and to measure the enrgy leaving the system and to do this over many years (decades). As this kind of data does not exist yet, we need to find round-about ways of attempting to deterimine weaterh GW is occureing or not. This currently entails looking for anomilies in the predictions of atmospheric and oceanic systems. But this is hampered by the fact that these system are chaotic and demonstrate a natural varience in these systems anyway. It is not just like looking for a needle in a haystack, but looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. This also means that it is easy to produce "evidence" against GW, simple by being selective (ie: ignoring the needles already found) in your data sources and your interperetations of that data. Science works on disproof. And your attempts at this should be encouraged, but, the method that you have shown here is questionable (ie: basing you arguments off data that you admit has no relevence to the argument, and so forth). This causes people to regard you claims as unreliable. And it cause people to regard your future endevors as questionable (it shouldn't, but it does, beacuse that is people). I woudl go back and reexamine your data, and use the data that is relevent to this problem. Using data that is not relevent to suport one's claims, does make one appear less than credible.

I'm no statistician, but even I can see that just looking at Maximums and Minimums can not reveal certain trends. Take these (made up) temperatures as an example: 12, 20, 22, 25, 26 Now the Maximum is 26 and the minimum is 12. The average however is 21. Now take these temperatures 12, 21, 23, 25, 26 The Maxium and Minumum is the same, but the average is different (being 21.4). Now if all you looked at were the maximum and minimum, then you would not see any change in the average temperature. If these were temperatures from one year to the next, then you would not see any "Global Warming" Yes heat/temerature is caused by an increase in energy. And we can harvest it. We can use wind turbine generators to harvest the extra energy from the wind speed (increased wind is also an effect of increased energy in the atmospheric system), we can use oceanic curents to drive turbines, we can use waves to generate electricity. So yes we can havest it, but the amount of energy we can pull out of the system is so small compared to the extra energy being put into the system, we can not make a significant difference to it (and not all the effects of the extra energy can be harvested). Storms are a very complex atmospheric effect. You would not expect that just increasing the energy levels will always lead to an increase in storm numbers. It can also be an increase in storm serverity, position, direction, wind speed, wind direction, or many other factors involved in storms (it could even show up as increased sizes of raindrops - higher wind speeds keep the drops from falling for longer and so have more time to get bigger). you seen to have an extremely simlistic view on what goes on in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a chaotic system (not random, but chaotic). If you don't understand chaos theory and how it relates to weather and the atmosphere then you should read up on it as it is an extremely important aspect of weather prediciton. Well GW could increase the severity of them, the length of them, the frequency that they occure, or it could even reduce all of these. Hmm....nope: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/200...in-in-dry.html It might not be on average, bu some areas might get increased rain fall and other will get lower rain fall as oceanic and atmospheric curents shift, or pick up moisture, etc. Remember if the amount of moisture in the atmosphere remained constant, then for someplaces to dry out other would likely have increased rainfall so the average would remain the same. Damn it. No again. That's not happening in Australia: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/200...in-in-dry.html Again the average might not change, but that does not mean that it is not happeneing. Changes in wind speed, weather patterns, rise in sea levels, changes in ocean curents, coral bleaching, and more. Essentially Global Warming is not about increased temperatures, but it does mean an increased in atmospheric phenomina, whatever they are. Increased energy into a chaotic (and I mean this in the mathematical sense) system will lead to an increase in that chaos (undpredicatbility, turbulance, etc). Unfortunately Golabal warming is just that: Global. What occurs in Australia can influence and be influenced by elsewhere in the world. It is the global effect of the increased energy in the atmosphere that is important. It is not much use to point to one location and say: "See, this is not experiencing an increase in temperature, so global warming is therfore not happening." Sure, Australia my not be seeing an increase in maximum or minimum temperatures, but that does not mean that GW is not occureing and these effects are not occureing elsewhere in the world and that they won't have an effect on Australia eventually (or already are). Currently the area in which I live in Australia is experienceing a prolonged drought (it is around 5 years now). Does this mean that it is an effect of global warming? No nessesarily, but it could be. The only solution is to examine it and trace its cause. The fact is that it is an extreme phenomina, but, by its self does not prove or disprove global warming. Only when viewe3d as part of the global situation can it even be put into the correct context for thie nessesary examination. By just looking at Australia proves or disproves nothing. So you needed to re-examine your data in the context of the global system.