since you've already been slammed, I'm not sure what else I can add...
What do nuke-lovers have against solar power? What is so wrong with Solar power that Nuclear looks attractive? Why doesn't it bother anyone that the only reason we have as many nuke plants in the US that we do was due to a gross over-estimation of the amount of bomb fuel that the military needed? And the only reason were stuck at 110 plants (or whatever the number is) was that the NRC (like... 30 years ago) shut down all new plants that weren't operating, and denied all requests for more due to concerns for public safety.
But if you say irradiated water tastes great... well, drink up!
You ought to pay more attention to the nonsense. A nuclear acceident is only like 20 mistakes away at any particular moment. And, at least in the US, every single spent nuclear rod containment facility at every single operating plant is at capacity. So, nonsense or not, we haven't figured out what to do with the stuff. Its been like 60 years, and we just don't know where it can be safely stored for 30,000 years. Considering that nuclear power has only gotten cheap due to the massive resources poured into its development since the 1940s (for bomb fuel, remember power from fission is a side effect), if the same resources were poured into solar development, then solar would be cheap.
Re:The Rules of the Swarm... on slashdot.
on
The Rules of the Swarm
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
~160 years ago, Søren Kierkegaard worked out the First Philosophy of the human swarm:
The crowd is untruth.
I think they (the Chinese) only need stealth to satisfy their customers, such as the US Navy, so they don't give away positions when US submariners have General Tso's delivered.
But you can't blame him; its not his fault that it sucks! And if there were any Star Trek universe series available that didn't suck, its not like he wouldn't watch it because it didn't suck.
Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and have the US back its own currency... not sure where parent got the gold standard thing. The FED is the main reason there's economic resessions every 10 years, built into the system, so its not that bad of an idea. Worked for Lincoln, didn't it?
Jobs has said in interviews that he sees the software industry moving away from Java, and towards such things as web (Ajax) and Flash apps. So, the question isn't whether Apple is interested, but whether S.Jobs will listen to those that are interested in Java. 5 years ago there was no question, Java was better on OS X & PPC than any other platform... but Steve lost interest, and developers that moved to Mac are now abandoning it because of this attitude apparently cuminating in no plans for Java 6 on Leopard (but I think the jury is still out... Apple can be acrobatic with technology, and in a blink change their minds and suddenly give everyone everything they ever wanted in a platform).
Fine... speaking to the ship's captain beforehand, then watching the ship disappear over the horizon, then seeing it come back over to the horizon and back to port, and speaking again to the captain on what he and all his crew observed (no end of the flat earth), disproves the earth is flat without proving that is a sphere, but is at least curved. You are wrong. Theories are disproved sometimes without alternate theories to replace them. Next thick, tedious, uninformed criticism, please!
hmmm... asumptions abound. I found that book a few times, and Sagan's others as well. I wanted to be a cosmologist when I was 12. But I studied philosophy as my major in university in the early 90's, and finished up with graduate course work specifically in philosophy of science. I know Occam's Razor well (prefer his arrow, however). You and other posters need a little more skepticism yourselves. Occam's says, all things being equal, the simplest explaination is probably correct. Get that straight. But to you specifically, since you are quite obviously not an ass at all, i.e. you seem mature, I recommend Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The only way Science can really progress is if the current paradigm, whenever current may be, is totally obliterated by someone that ignores the parrots of the established paradigm. Don't be a parrot (unless you teach).
Now... I've carelessly been throwing around words because this is/. , and I realize I don't need proof at all, just some reason's why Tesla's claims are, it is obviously well accepted, to be considered so absurd that its not worth discussing even a little bit intelligently. I'm not a physicist, but I have it on good authority that they sometimes hang out here... and where ever they are, it was really them I was hoping were going to come post. If Tesla's wrong, then if anyone knows why, they do.
Mine was a better analogy, chosen because cold waves don't exist, thus making it painfully easy to disprove. Proving the Earth is a sphere is merely one way to disprove that its flat. Another way would be merely to show that, even in just a local sense, that it has curvature (watching ships disappear off the horizon doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere, just that it isn't flat). If Tesla is wrong, its very likely possible to prove this without proving something else is correct.
Again, its only impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but proving something wrong without alternative theories being proven right happens all the time. A better example is Edison and the light bulb... he disproved hundreds of ways to make a lightbulb before ever proving the correct way. Prior to his success, those other ways were still disproven.
Debate? I'm looking for some scientific flaws, good reasons why it can't be true. All a quick dismissal says is "no, but I don't know why." Someone must know.
Its not impossible to disprove something! People throw this around like its fact and its hogwash. Its not possible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless it is fundamentally contradictory, but that's not at all the same as disproving a theory.
Thus you illustrate the problem of paradigms. No one will believe something else until they are proven wrong (consider Newton vs Einstein). This isn't like proving God doesn't exist, that, indeed, is impossible. Its not possible to prove something doesn't exist (God, Sasquatch, aliens) but its merely not often easy, but things can be proven wrong. e.g. My hypothesis that the Sun is actually emitting cold waves. Very easily proven wrong without proving any other theory is right.
In this case, if Tesla didn't cause the explosion, this can be scientifically proven without proving what actually occurred. But I'm not asking for proof positive that he was wrong, just good argument against the claim that isn't dismissive nor involve alternative theories. For example, maybe we can show Tesla actually slept in the day of the explosion, so it couldn't have been him. Or maybe he was out of the state travelling that week, etc., but I'd prefer "Tesla was incorrect about a number of his theories, and here's why... he claims this, but we now know this and this, so we know he was incorrect about..." etc.
Thanks for agreeing about Occum with razor...
Doesn't the comet threory have some serious flaws? Like lack of iridium, no radiation, and nothing to explain the subsequent increase in genetic mutation in the area (which, presumably, Tesla theory supporters would say it was from massive amounts of ELFs, like raising kids under power lines)?
In this case Occam's Razor is a cop out, philosophy, not science. You're not helping, but others will. I asked for anything other than a quick dismissal, but thanks for that quick dismissal. Please, will anyone else give it a try? I am just sure there is REAL scientific proof that it couldn't be Tesla, and I'd like to be introduced to it.
As compelling as your argument is, I already acknowledged that its near impossible to disprove something. I'm saying "do it anyway," because this isn't criminal court, and nothing is stopping you from doing so. The Tesla Theory has many facts offerred, and I've never seen any argument against it other that "it couldn't have been Tesla because it was something else with equally speculative science." Physicists, or whomever, should try directly contradicting Tesla's "claims." If successful, people like me won't inquire again, as it'll be settled that it was something else.
A comet airbust causes magnetic fluctuations in the upper atmosphere leading to glowing night skies for a week after the event? Are there eye-witness acounts of this occurring prior to the 1908 Explosion? I know there's many accounts in history of impacts and crud hitting the atmosphere, and I've read a few, but I've never heard of this phenomenon being reported either prior or subsequent to that week after the Explosion. Any that can link to this apparently well known phenomenon... plz do.
No, not a troll but an ask. The Tesla explanation is always quickly dismissed. My point is that quick dismissal never quashes underdog theories. What is needed is a thoroughly complete study of why it couldn't have been Tesla. I realize its sometimes impossible to disprove anything, but, afaik no one has even tried. "Its ridiculous, that's why," is not a scientific explaination. Many many many sane individuals, either for lack of specific scientific knowledge or real evidence to the contrary, think maybe its possible... so if its not, those that know should stop being so evasive and dismissive, come down from their self-proclaimed iamsmarterthaneveryone towers and just break it down once and for all from all possible angles.
Most of Tesla's patents are still classified secret, so it really comes down to the integrety of these investigators. If Tesla caused the 1908 Explosion, the us government would not want that fact known and widely accepted. So is it likely the US Gov. is secretly funding a scientific team? What is needed is for Nova, or National Geographic or some respected news agency to take on Tesla's claim and not quickly dismiss it because it is too fantastic. Lack of a crater and no evidence of extra-terrestrial stuff are not the only facts supporting Tesla's claim, but includes what I've never seen any documentary explain, the glowing nights after the Explosion... which Tesla predicted.
That would be funny... but Apple's had tablet prototypes for about a decade. The secret isn't whether they have a tablet, because everyone knows they do. The secret is when it will become available and what it looks like, and a rumor a few weeks ago spilled that... its coming in Spring & looks like iPhone, but its twice the size-ish, DVD resolution, 740 x 480 (credit engadget or gizmodo or ars technica with the rumor-- no, I can't tell them apart-- the French all look the same to me).
Its probably a fast photo-copier with binding, not a press. And although slightly larger, end to end paperback book-producing machines have been in use widely since the turn of the century.
The big announcement is vapoware? This shit didn't fly very far in the late 90's, and its not going to make it further than 2 years of promises. Google's bubble is going to burst... oh? Did you think their stock would continue to rise ad infinitum? Nope, sell now, it'll be down to $40 before 2010.
Slashdot Mirror
since you've already been slammed, I'm not sure what else I can add... What do nuke-lovers have against solar power? What is so wrong with Solar power that Nuclear looks attractive? Why doesn't it bother anyone that the only reason we have as many nuke plants in the US that we do was due to a gross over-estimation of the amount of bomb fuel that the military needed? And the only reason were stuck at 110 plants (or whatever the number is) was that the NRC (like... 30 years ago) shut down all new plants that weren't operating, and denied all requests for more due to concerns for public safety. But if you say irradiated water tastes great... well, drink up!
You ought to pay more attention to the nonsense. A nuclear acceident is only like 20 mistakes away at any particular moment. And, at least in the US, every single spent nuclear rod containment facility at every single operating plant is at capacity. So, nonsense or not, we haven't figured out what to do with the stuff. Its been like 60 years, and we just don't know where it can be safely stored for 30,000 years. Considering that nuclear power has only gotten cheap due to the massive resources poured into its development since the 1940s (for bomb fuel, remember power from fission is a side effect), if the same resources were poured into solar development, then solar would be cheap.
~160 years ago, Søren Kierkegaard worked out the First Philosophy of the human swarm:
The crowd is untruth.
Obviosly, these scientists have fallen victom to the cats' mind-control warfare, aka toxoplasmosis.
I think they (the Chinese) only need stealth to satisfy their customers, such as the US Navy, so they don't give away positions when US submariners have General Tso's delivered.
But you can't blame him; its not his fault that it sucks! And if there were any Star Trek universe series available that didn't suck, its not like he wouldn't watch it because it didn't suck.
Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and have the US back its own currency... not sure where parent got the gold standard thing. The FED is the main reason there's economic resessions every 10 years, built into the system, so its not that bad of an idea. Worked for Lincoln, didn't it?
Jobs has said in interviews that he sees the software industry moving away from Java, and towards such things as web (Ajax) and Flash apps. So, the question isn't whether Apple is interested, but whether S.Jobs will listen to those that are interested in Java. 5 years ago there was no question, Java was better on OS X & PPC than any other platform... but Steve lost interest, and developers that moved to Mac are now abandoning it because of this attitude apparently cuminating in no plans for Java 6 on Leopard (but I think the jury is still out... Apple can be acrobatic with technology, and in a blink change their minds and suddenly give everyone everything they ever wanted in a platform).
Dude knows what he's talking about. Listen to this dude.
Fine... speaking to the ship's captain beforehand, then watching the ship disappear over the horizon, then seeing it come back over to the horizon and back to port, and speaking again to the captain on what he and all his crew observed (no end of the flat earth), disproves the earth is flat without proving that is a sphere, but is at least curved. You are wrong. Theories are disproved sometimes without alternate theories to replace them. Next thick, tedious, uninformed criticism, please!
hmmm... asumptions abound. I found that book a few times, and Sagan's others as well. I wanted to be a cosmologist when I was 12. But I studied philosophy as my major in university in the early 90's, and finished up with graduate course work specifically in philosophy of science. I know Occam's Razor well (prefer his arrow, however). You and other posters need a little more skepticism yourselves. Occam's says, all things being equal, the simplest explaination is probably correct. Get that straight. But to you specifically, since you are quite obviously not an ass at all, i.e. you seem mature, I recommend Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The only way Science can really progress is if the current paradigm, whenever current may be, is totally obliterated by someone that ignores the parrots of the established paradigm. Don't be a parrot (unless you teach).
/. , and I realize I don't need proof at all, just some reason's why Tesla's claims are, it is obviously well accepted, to be considered so absurd that its not worth discussing even a little bit intelligently. I'm not a physicist, but I have it on good authority that they sometimes hang out here... and where ever they are, it was really them I was hoping were going to come post. If Tesla's wrong, then if anyone knows why, they do.
Now... I've carelessly been throwing around words because this is
Mine was a better analogy, chosen because cold waves don't exist, thus making it painfully easy to disprove. Proving the Earth is a sphere is merely one way to disprove that its flat. Another way would be merely to show that, even in just a local sense, that it has curvature (watching ships disappear off the horizon doesn't prove the Earth is a sphere, just that it isn't flat). If Tesla is wrong, its very likely possible to prove this without proving something else is correct. Again, its only impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but proving something wrong without alternative theories being proven right happens all the time. A better example is Edison and the light bulb... he disproved hundreds of ways to make a lightbulb before ever proving the correct way. Prior to his success, those other ways were still disproven.
Debate? I'm looking for some scientific flaws, good reasons why it can't be true. All a quick dismissal says is "no, but I don't know why." Someone must know.
Its not impossible to disprove something! People throw this around like its fact and its hogwash. Its not possible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless it is fundamentally contradictory, but that's not at all the same as disproving a theory.
Thus you illustrate the problem of paradigms. No one will believe something else until they are proven wrong (consider Newton vs Einstein). This isn't like proving God doesn't exist, that, indeed, is impossible. Its not possible to prove something doesn't exist (God, Sasquatch, aliens) but its merely not often easy, but things can be proven wrong. e.g. My hypothesis that the Sun is actually emitting cold waves. Very easily proven wrong without proving any other theory is right.
In this case, if Tesla didn't cause the explosion, this can be scientifically proven without proving what actually occurred. But I'm not asking for proof positive that he was wrong, just good argument against the claim that isn't dismissive nor involve alternative theories. For example, maybe we can show Tesla actually slept in the day of the explosion, so it couldn't have been him. Or maybe he was out of the state travelling that week, etc., but I'd prefer "Tesla was incorrect about a number of his theories, and here's why... he claims this, but we now know this and this, so we know he was incorrect about..." etc.
Thanks for agreeing about Occum with razor... Doesn't the comet threory have some serious flaws? Like lack of iridium, no radiation, and nothing to explain the subsequent increase in genetic mutation in the area (which, presumably, Tesla theory supporters would say it was from massive amounts of ELFs, like raising kids under power lines)?
In this case Occam's Razor is a cop out, philosophy, not science. You're not helping, but others will. I asked for anything other than a quick dismissal, but thanks for that quick dismissal. Please, will anyone else give it a try? I am just sure there is REAL scientific proof that it couldn't be Tesla, and I'd like to be introduced to it.
As compelling as your argument is, I already acknowledged that its near impossible to disprove something. I'm saying "do it anyway," because this isn't criminal court, and nothing is stopping you from doing so. The Tesla Theory has many facts offerred, and I've never seen any argument against it other that "it couldn't have been Tesla because it was something else with equally speculative science." Physicists, or whomever, should try directly contradicting Tesla's "claims." If successful, people like me won't inquire again, as it'll be settled that it was something else.
A comet airbust causes magnetic fluctuations in the upper atmosphere leading to glowing night skies for a week after the event? Are there eye-witness acounts of this occurring prior to the 1908 Explosion? I know there's many accounts in history of impacts and crud hitting the atmosphere, and I've read a few, but I've never heard of this phenomenon being reported either prior or subsequent to that week after the Explosion. Any that can link to this apparently well known phenomenon... plz do.
No, not a troll but an ask.
The Tesla explanation is always quickly dismissed. My point is that quick dismissal never quashes underdog theories. What is needed is a thoroughly complete study of why it couldn't have been Tesla. I realize its sometimes impossible to disprove anything, but, afaik no one has even tried. "Its ridiculous, that's why," is not a scientific explaination. Many many many sane individuals, either for lack of specific scientific knowledge or real evidence to the contrary, think maybe its possible... so if its not, those that know should stop being so evasive and dismissive, come down from their self-proclaimed iamsmarterthaneveryone towers and just break it down once and for all from all possible angles.
And, yes, you are funny. plz keep it up!
Most of Tesla's patents are still classified secret, so it really comes down to the integrety of these investigators. If Tesla caused the 1908 Explosion, the us government would not want that fact known and widely accepted. So is it likely the US Gov. is secretly funding a scientific team? What is needed is for Nova, or National Geographic or some respected news agency to take on Tesla's claim and not quickly dismiss it because it is too fantastic. Lack of a crater and no evidence of extra-terrestrial stuff are not the only facts supporting Tesla's claim, but includes what I've never seen any documentary explain, the glowing nights after the Explosion... which Tesla predicted.
He caused mold to grow?
That would be funny... but Apple's had tablet prototypes for about a decade. The secret isn't whether they have a tablet, because everyone knows they do. The secret is when it will become available and what it looks like, and a rumor a few weeks ago spilled that... its coming in Spring & looks like iPhone, but its twice the size-ish, DVD resolution, 740 x 480 (credit engadget or gizmodo or ars technica with the rumor-- no, I can't tell them apart-- the French all look the same to me).
Its probably a fast photo-copier with binding, not a press. And although slightly larger, end to end paperback book-producing machines have been in use widely since the turn of the century.
The big announcement is vapoware? This shit didn't fly very far in the late 90's, and its not going to make it further than 2 years of promises. Google's bubble is going to burst... oh? Did you think their stock would continue to rise ad infinitum? Nope, sell now, it'll be down to $40 before 2010.