Earth has no significant acceleration and relativity only applies in an accelerating frame of reference.
Huh?
Gravitational time dilation is the g_00 term in the metric, in which the deviation from 1 is proportional to gravitational potential. You get the same time dilation whether you are deep in a gravity well at high surface acceleration or at low. (In fact, you would get gravitational time dilation even if you were at the exact center of a planet, where acceleration is zero.)
When orbits have been seen as being perturbed from the calculated orbit, hypothesizing a not (yet) seen object doing the perturbing has been, so far, a pretty good prediction, dating back to the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus in 1846: https://earthsky.org/human-wor...
...does there need to be an "answer" to the US GPS? Is there something the EU member want to do that the current GPS network cannot or declines to do?
Yes: when President Clinton opened the high-resolution GPS up to all users (instead of just military) in May 2000, he reserved the right of the U.S. to selectively turn off the GPS system in the event of war or another national emergency (specific words were: "capability to selectively deny GPS signals on a regional basis when our national security is threatened"). The Europeans at that point committed to making their own system, which they could control, and turn of when they think it's necessary, not us.
Einstein's theory predicts time will pass more slowly close to a massive object, which means that a clock on Earth's surface should tick at a more sluggish rate relative to one on a satellite in orbit.
This is so obviously and absurdly wrong, that it is really astounding. A clock does not measure time.
To the contrary. Time is defined as that which (ideal) clocks measure.
If the clock on a satellite moves more slowly, it is because something, in this case gravity, has caused the mechanism of the clock to move more slowly.
You can, if you like, think of general relativity this way, as long as you keep firmly in mind that gravity will slow down all clocks, regardless of the physical mechanism, including mechanical clocks, biological clocks, the frequency of light emissions from atoms, radioactive decay, and any other possible clock, even using mechanisms you haven't thought of yet.
(This is emulating Lorentz's thinking, who interpreted the Lorentz time dilation as clocks slowing down,)
But when you completely understand that this is all clocks that slow down, really it's simpler to think of time as slowing down.
... (If a clock, powered by a battery, runs more slowly because the battery has become weak, no one claims that time has slowed down.)
True enough, but irrelevant. Yes, it is in fact ideal clocks that define time.
also it's normal for big corporations to seek incentives from state
It's normal. That doesn't mean it's good.
, in the long run the state and population gets many times the return
No, in general not. The "long run" result is that once one company discovers that they can avoid taxes by pitting one locality against another in a bidding war, then all companies start to do that, and essentially what happens is that municipalities stop getting revenue from taxes. So they have to tax their residents instead.
When you say "gravity isn't settled science!" you are either a. clueless, or b., pretty much saying that the word had no meaning. (Or both.)
If your sentence saying gravity isn't settled is intended to mean "climate science is settled to the same extent as the understanding of gravity is," then you're saying climate science is pretty damn well accepted in the scientific community and is well understood experimentally. Nobody with a clue challenges 9.81 as the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface..
OK, I'll go with that. Climate science is about as settled as gravity.
...and not to mention that Amazon required a nondisclosure agreement from the cities bidding, so that the taxpayers actually couldn't know what their politicians were giving away.
What they're objecting to, of course, is not the jobs being brought in, but the massive taxpayer funded give-away that New York politicians promised (without any oversight) to give Amazon to tempt them to come, along with the tax breaks they promised as well, to make sure that they don't pay for it.
The belief that only stupid people ever need help is a self-aggrandizing myth promulgated by idiot programmers who think that they're perfect and anybody who doesn't understand that is stupid.
You said in a previous thread "Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against, but once again, here every argument you make is "against" the science.
That's not a coincidence.
So, let's look at your latest claims.
1. Yeah, popularization bullshit. You know what? Gravity actually is settled. If you want to argue what "settled" means, and make it a point to say "gravity isn't settled science!"--well, fine, but it's pretty clear you're really obfuscating. That is philosophy, not science.
2. It doesn't matter what politicians say. A fucking shit-ton of Republican politicans are telling me climate change isn't real. You know what? The science is what it is regardless of what the politics are.
3. Why don't you ignore the stuff presented to congress, and look at the actual science which is very well documented in many, many, many papers?
4. Nope. You're reading denialist websites, which cherry-pick both data and predictions. Read the actual IPCC reports, and it turns out the predictions so far are matching the data to well within error bars.
Summary, you're mostly either obfuscating, or saying "I don't like politicians". What politicians say isn't science.
Do note, though, that world carbon-dioxide emission is 37 billion tons, so the 190 million tons from fire and logging and insects is still a comparatively small number. (Large compared to other British Columbia emissions mainly because British Columbia doesn't have a lot of other emissions).
Still: very interesting data; something to think about. thanks for posting it.
Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against. I am saying that the current temperature does not prove anything.
I don't even know what you mean by "doesn't prove anything". This is not mathematics. We're talking about evidence, not mathematical "proof".
By the way, your argument seems to imply that deforestation may be more significant than CO2. Does that make you a denier, or is that OK as long as you still blame the humans?
Neither. Human-produced carbon dioxide is one of the forcing factors of climate. It is not the only forcing factor. The total carbon dioxide forcing, of course, is the integrated carbon dioxide input into the atmosphere minus the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. If you had somehow simplified that in your mind to "all that matters is that we burn coal, nothing else affects the climate" the problem is on your end. Actual climate modelling looks at both sources and sinks.
Not all the factors affecting climate are human produced. Anthropogenic factors are not instead of natural factors, they are in addition to natural factors.
For the current era, however, we have very good measurements of the forcing factors. We can attribute what is causing the temperature rise to human activity because we measure the forcing factors, and other factors are too small to have the effect we are measuring.
...by the way, you started this post saying "Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against. "
I just did a search of your posts, and: bullshit you're not. Every single post you make a point that just "happens" to be an argument against the science.
Yes, the statement "about one half of one ten-thousandth of a penny per page" is preposterous.
Maintaining a server costs money; dealing with users costs money; maintaining a user INTERFACE costs money; and the help desk that answers questions like "how do I do this search and how do I get that document" costs money.
And, in the real world, you ARE going to need somebody to answer questions like "how do I do this" and "that function doesn't work." Even if you think the interface is self-explanatory, you are going to need it. (In fact, ESPECIALLY if you think the interface is self-explanatory).
Really, ten cents a page might be a little high, but the number is going to be much closer to 10 cents per page than to the quoted ten cents per two hundred thousand pages.
Why don't they post about solar activity like the upward trend in solar flares and the sun's cycle of sunspots. I beleive lower sunspot activity actually increases the amount of energy expelled into the solar system. What happens when you turn up the furnace in your house . ..it gets hotter.
Because we measure the energy output of the sun and have been measuring it constantly, with good resolution, since the 1960s (and with poorer resolution for longer than that.)
We know that changes in solar activity aren't causing the warming because we measure the changes in solar activity, and the sun is not putting out more energy now than it was in 1960.
(The main change is the 12 year sunspot cycle, which averages out)
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out.
No, in fact you're wrong here. If you average noisy data, you get less noisy data.
This is fundamental to measurement theory.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/understand-tradeoffs-increasing-resolution-averaging
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3488/en/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_averaging
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements.
That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
It's far from the only way science is done - try repeatable experiment, or control group (obviously difficult).
A repeatable experiment is one way to compare models to results, of course. In some fields, like astronomy and climate science, however, we use measurements. Either way, however, the point is to compare models with results.
That's how science is done.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
Someone not believing the model does not have to provide an alternative.
Obviously you're not a scientist, because in fact this is how science is done. You compare your hypothesis to an alternative hypothesis, and keep throwing out the hypothesis that doesn't match the observations.
The null hypothesis (LOOK IT UP), that human carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate, has failed to match observations. It has been ruled out. The best model we have right now is that the physical effect known as global warming is real. If you want to convince scientists it's not, you need an alternate model, and you need it to not be contradicted by the measurements.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
Those providing the model need to prove that it's true.
No, you weren't paying attention. Scientists don't "prove a model is true". The best they ever do is show that it fits the observations, and they then accept it as the best model until a model that explains the observations better is found.
In this case, the increased human contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule compare to other sources, so the model is really assuming that we;'re at an (unproven) tipping point. Starting with a false hypothesis or set of assumptions can only lead to a false outcome.
Um, what? You are basically saying you don't know anything about the history of scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect?
Yes, indeed, the human-contributed greenhouse gasses produce warming that is small compared to the natural greenhouse effect. This has been known for a century. Without the natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (primarily water vapor), the Earth would have an average temperature below zero.
It is the change in temperature due to human contributed gasses that we're talking about. And, fortunately, we have really good measurements of how much carbon dioxide we've put in the atmosphere, and also good measurements of the infrared absorption profile of carbon dioxide.
The big "but" here is that emitting carbon dioxide is only one of the forcing factors. The other big big forcing factor in carbon dioxide that's affected by humans is due to deforestation. There was a enormous amount of deforestation going on in the 1800s.
NASA does not have a long-standing finding that Mankind is driving climate change; they have a long-standing belief, and have made statements, but still no scientific proof.
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements.
That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
...weather isn't the same as climate. At least that's what all the AGW zealots say when we have a cold snap.
Correct: weather is not the same thing as climate. A single cold winter in a single place is not evidence against global climate change, nor, on the other hand, is a single warm winter in a single place evidence for global climate change.
That's why this is relevant: this is not a single location, it is a global average, and it is not a single day or even a single month, it is a average over a year.
Correct. The prepaid ones could work during the shutdown for as long as their contract continues.
I should have added "could work during the shutdown UNLESS their work required them to be on-site (like, say, the janitors and cafeteria workers), or their work required them to work with civil servants (like, say, the secretaries), or their work required individual oversight by civil servants (like, say, technicians working on experiments overseen by civil servants), or they worked on assigned individual tasks that were billed on a task by task basis (like, say, graphic artists)."
I'm pretty sure that all government agencies are facing the same problems why should NASA be any different
1. Because this is news for nerds, and nerds are interested in NASA, but less interested in, for example, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
2. Because there was a televised address to NASA employees by the NASA administrator, giving details. If there was a televised address by the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I didn't hear about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Earth has no significant acceleration and relativity only applies in an accelerating frame of reference.
Huh?
Gravitational time dilation is the g_00 term in the metric, in which the deviation from 1 is proportional to gravitational potential. You get the same time dilation whether you are deep in a gravity well at high surface acceleration or at low. (In fact, you would get gravitational time dilation even if you were at the exact center of a planet, where acceleration is zero.)
I though that DT was above all that: he made his own buzzwords, instead of repeating somebody else's.
When orbits have been seen as being perturbed from the calculated orbit, hypothesizing a not (yet) seen object doing the perturbing has been, so far, a pretty good prediction, dating back to the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus in 1846: https://earthsky.org/human-wor...
...does there need to be an "answer" to the US GPS? Is there something the EU member want to do that the current GPS network cannot or declines to do?
Yes: when President Clinton opened the high-resolution GPS up to all users (instead of just military) in May 2000, he reserved the right of the U.S. to selectively turn off the GPS system in the event of war or another national emergency (specific words were: "capability to selectively deny GPS signals on a regional basis when our national security is threatened"). The Europeans at that point committed to making their own system, which they could control, and turn of when they think it's necessary, not us.
Einstein's theory predicts time will pass more slowly close to a massive object, which means that a clock on Earth's surface should tick at a more sluggish rate relative to one on a satellite in orbit.
This is so obviously and absurdly wrong, that it is really astounding. A clock does not measure time.
To the contrary. Time is defined as that which (ideal) clocks measure.
If the clock on a satellite moves more slowly, it is because something, in this case gravity, has caused the mechanism of the clock to move more slowly.
You can, if you like, think of general relativity this way, as long as you keep firmly in mind that gravity will slow down all clocks, regardless of the physical mechanism, including mechanical clocks, biological clocks, the frequency of light emissions from atoms, radioactive decay, and any other possible clock, even using mechanisms you haven't thought of yet.
(This is emulating Lorentz's thinking, who interpreted the Lorentz time dilation as clocks slowing down,)
But when you completely understand that this is all clocks that slow down, really it's simpler to think of time as slowing down.
... (If a clock, powered by a battery, runs more slowly because the battery has become weak, no one claims that time has slowed down.)
True enough, but irrelevant. Yes, it is in fact ideal clocks that define time.
also it's normal for big corporations to seek incentives from state
It's normal. That doesn't mean it's good.
, in the long run the state and population gets many times the return
No, in general not. The "long run" result is that once one company discovers that they can avoid taxes by pitting one locality against another in a bidding war, then all companies start to do that, and essentially what happens is that municipalities stop getting revenue from taxes. So they have to tax their residents instead.
Everybody loses.
When you say "gravity isn't settled science!" you are either a. clueless, or b., pretty much saying that the word had no meaning. (Or both.)
If your sentence saying gravity isn't settled is intended to mean "climate science is settled to the same extent as the understanding of gravity is," then you're saying climate science is pretty damn well accepted in the scientific community and is well understood experimentally. Nobody with a clue challenges 9.81 as the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface..
OK, I'll go with that. Climate science is about as settled as gravity.
...and not to mention that Amazon required a nondisclosure agreement from the cities bidding, so that the taxpayers actually couldn't know what their politicians were giving away.
Which was: 3 billion dollars.
A billion here, a billion there-- it adds up
" the team first sourced a large amount of general audio data ... with ground truth produced by another model."
So, actually, the program wasn't detecting anger. The program was modelling what a different program detected in the signal.
I pray god to please save me from programmers who keep saying "it's really simple, it won't take any effort or cost any money."
Yeah, sure.
You've never been right about that before, but maybe this time.
Turns out they're wrong.
That's not a coincidence.
So, let's look at your latest claims.
1. Yeah, popularization bullshit. You know what? Gravity actually is settled. If you want to argue what "settled" means, and make it a point to say "gravity isn't settled science!"--well, fine, but it's pretty clear you're really obfuscating. That is philosophy, not science.
2. It doesn't matter what politicians say. A fucking shit-ton of Republican politicans are telling me climate change isn't real. You know what? The science is what it is regardless of what the politics are.
3. Why don't you ignore the stuff presented to congress, and look at the actual science which is very well documented in many, many, many papers?
4. Nope. You're reading denialist websites, which cherry-pick both data and predictions. Read the actual IPCC reports, and it turns out the predictions so far are matching the data to well within error bars.
Summary, you're mostly either obfuscating, or saying "I don't like politicians". What politicians say isn't science.
Do note, though, that world carbon-dioxide emission is 37 billion tons, so the 190 million tons from fire and logging and insects is still a comparatively small number. (Large compared to other British Columbia emissions mainly because British Columbia doesn't have a lot of other emissions).
Still: very interesting data; something to think about. thanks for posting it.
Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against. I am saying that the current temperature does not prove anything.
I don't even know what you mean by "doesn't prove anything". This is not mathematics. We're talking about evidence, not mathematical "proof".
By the way, your argument seems to imply that deforestation may be more significant than CO2. Does that make you a denier, or is that OK as long as you still blame the humans?
Neither. Human-produced carbon dioxide is one of the forcing factors of climate. It is not the only forcing factor. The total carbon dioxide forcing, of course, is the integrated carbon dioxide input into the atmosphere minus the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. If you had somehow simplified that in your mind to "all that matters is that we burn coal, nothing else affects the climate" the problem is on your end. Actual climate modelling looks at both sources and sinks.
Not all the factors affecting climate are human produced. Anthropogenic factors are not instead of natural factors, they are in addition to natural factors.
For the current era, however, we have very good measurements of the forcing factors. We can attribute what is causing the temperature rise to human activity because we measure the forcing factors, and other factors are too small to have the effect we are measuring.
I just did a search of your posts, and: bullshit you're not. Every single post you make a point that just "happens" to be an argument against the science.
Maintaining a server costs money; dealing with users costs money; maintaining a user INTERFACE costs money; and the help desk that answers questions like "how do I do this search and how do I get that document" costs money.
And, in the real world, you ARE going to need somebody to answer questions like "how do I do this" and "that function doesn't work." Even if you think the interface is self-explanatory, you are going to need it. (In fact, ESPECIALLY if you think the interface is self-explanatory).
Really, ten cents a page might be a little high, but the number is going to be much closer to 10 cents per page than to the quoted ten cents per two hundred thousand pages.
It's possible to worry about more than one thing.
Why don't they post about solar activity like the upward trend in solar flares and the sun's cycle of sunspots. I beleive lower sunspot activity actually increases the amount of energy expelled into the solar system. What happens when you turn up the furnace in your house . . .it gets hotter.
Because we measure the energy output of the sun and have been measuring it constantly, with good resolution, since the 1960s (and with poorer resolution for longer than that.)
We know that changes in solar activity aren't causing the warming because we measure the changes in solar activity, and the sun is not putting out more energy now than it was in 1960.
(The main change is the 12 year sunspot cycle, which averages out)
Sort of - this is where the real dragons lay.
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out.
No, in fact you're wrong here. If you average noisy data, you get less noisy data.
This is fundamental to measurement theory.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/understand-tradeoffs-increasing-resolution-averaging
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3488/en/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_averaging
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements. That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
It's far from the only way science is done - try repeatable experiment, or control group (obviously difficult).
A repeatable experiment is one way to compare models to results, of course. In some fields, like astronomy and climate science, however, we use measurements. Either way, however, the point is to compare models with results.
That's how science is done.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
Someone not believing the model does not have to provide an alternative.
Obviously you're not a scientist, because in fact this is how science is done. You compare your hypothesis to an alternative hypothesis, and keep throwing out the hypothesis that doesn't match the observations.
The null hypothesis (LOOK IT UP), that human carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate, has failed to match observations. It has been ruled out. The best model we have right now is that the physical effect known as global warming is real. If you want to convince scientists it's not, you need an alternate model, and you need it to not be contradicted by the measurements.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
Those providing the model need to prove that it's true.
No, you weren't paying attention. Scientists don't "prove a model is true". The best they ever do is show that it fits the observations, and they then accept it as the best model until a model that explains the observations better is found.
In this case, the increased human contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule compare to other sources, so the model is really assuming that we;'re at an (unproven) tipping point. Starting with a false hypothesis or set of assumptions can only lead to a false outcome.
Um, what? You are basically saying you don't know anything about the history of scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect?
Yes, indeed, the human-contributed greenhouse gasses produce warming that is small compared to the natural greenhouse effect. This has been known for a century. Without the natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (primarily water vapor), the Earth would have an average temperature below zero.
It is the change in temperature due to human contributed gasses that we're talking about. And, fortunately, we have really good measurements of how much carbon dioxide we've put in the atmosphere, and also good measurements of the infrared absorption profile of carbon dioxide.
The big "but" here is that emitting carbon dioxide is only one of the forcing factors. The other big big forcing factor in carbon dioxide that's affected by humans is due to deforestation . There was a enormous amount of deforestation going on in the 1800s.
NASA does not have a long-standing finding that Mankind is driving climate change; they have a long-standing belief, and have made statements, but still no scientific proof.
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements.
That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
...weather isn't the same as climate. At least that's what all the AGW zealots say when we have a cold snap.
Correct: weather is not the same thing as climate. A single cold winter in a single place is not evidence against global climate change, nor, on the other hand, is a single warm winter in a single place evidence for global climate change.
That's why this is relevant: this is not a single location, it is a global average, and it is not a single day or even a single month, it is a average over a year.
And it is one data point in a trend: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
That is what we mean by climate.
But you knew that.
Contractors are either prepaid or postpaid.
Correct. The prepaid ones could work during the shutdown for as long as their contract continues.
I should have added "could work during the shutdown UNLESS their work required them to be on-site (like, say, the janitors and cafeteria workers), or their work required them to work with civil servants (like, say, the secretaries), or their work required individual oversight by civil servants (like, say, technicians working on experiments overseen by civil servants), or they worked on assigned individual tasks that were billed on a task by task basis (like, say, graphic artists)."
I'm pretty sure that all government agencies are facing the same problems why should NASA be any different
1. Because this is news for nerds, and nerds are interested in NASA, but less interested in, for example, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
2. Because there was a televised address to NASA employees by the NASA administrator, giving details. If there was a televised address by the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I didn't hear about it.
this is a waste of an article
Only if you're not a nerd.