On 28/08/14 13:49, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If every household had a 100kwh car -all 20million of them - and that's
50 grand per household investment at todays prices, so we have a total
of 2000 GWh, that would power the country on average for about three
weeks.
...
And the cost would be around £1 trillion.

10^12 / 20x10^6 = 50,000.

So you think the batteries in an electric car cost £50,000?

Decent ones, yes.

The new Mitsubishi-Nissan electric car is going to cost
$14,598.00 = £8,805.87 in Japan.

IT doesn't have a 100Kwh lithium battery in it does it?

http://transportevolved.com/2014/08/05/mitsubishi-nissan-confirm-low-cost-electric-car-partnership/
And that's the whole car.

You seem to pick your figures out of a hat.

Nope., I pick them out of a very very detailed amount of info I have to
hand after extensive research.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 14:15, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of
Energy to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to
make cells that,
when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in electric
cars,
would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.

Goals are nothing like reality.

Like the reality of dealing with nuclear waste?
Ie, hoping something will come along, like Micawber.

We are talking about dealing with nuclear waste., not building windmills
and batteries.

We know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. We have known for over 50
years. Buts stupid people wont let us do it.


I doubt if the US government would fund this research
unless they thought there was a reasonable chance of it succeeding.
They probably know better than you or me.

Than you certainly. Than me? On matters electrical and power generation,
probably not.

Thats not a reflection of my genius, more a reflection of the utter lack
of knowledge on matters technical that any government, with the odd
exception of China and Iran, and POSSIBLY Israel, seem to have.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. We have known for over 50
years. Buts stupid people wont let us do it.

Perhaps you should breed more geniuses like yourself
until your kind gets into a majority.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Bit like your approach to electrical storage.
--
bert

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

WE ain't gonna get to the stars with solar panels, batteries and
windmills. No way.

Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.

Nope, putting it back in the ground where it came from originally.

It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Nope, nothing like it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I doubt if the US government would fund this research
unless they thought there was a reasonable chance of it succeeding.
They probably know better than you or me.

Than you certainly. Than me? On matters electrical and power generation,
probably not.

How fortunate that we have you to tell us what to do.

But it must be such a burden to be surrounded by stupid people.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 28/08/14 23:03, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. We have known for over 50
years. Buts stupid people wont let us do it.

Perhaps you should breed more geniuses like yourself
until your kind gets into a majority.

Sadly I hadn't the heart to introduce new life into this pathetic
overcrowded world.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 23:10, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

WE ain't gonna get to the stars with solar panels, batteries and
windmills. No way.

Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

THAT oddly enough I do not believe.

we have a few billion years to find out how to do it, and its quite a
laudable goal.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

And we know enough about space time to realise we really don't know
anything about space time.

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Just not in the next 50 years...

Which means we are stuck with nukes.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 23:13, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I doubt if the US government would fund this research
unless they thought there was a reasonable chance of it succeeding.
They probably know better than you or me.

Than you certainly. Than me? On matters electrical and power generation,
probably not.

How fortunate that we have you to tell us what to do.

But it must be such a burden to be surrounded by stupid people.

Never a truer word spoken in irony..



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 23:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Why should they want anyone to take it of their hands? It can be stored
out in the open above ground.

As TNP says, one of the better solutions would be to dump it in a deep
ocean trench along a fault line, where it can over time be drawn into
the mantle by subduction. There it would join all the other radioactive
material inside the planet.

Of course there'd be a rumpus about that, with a lot of fools talking
about the "pristine ocean", quite overlooking the 10,000 sunken
merchant ships from WW1 and WW2, and the more than 1000 sunken U-boats,
too.


Not to mention the total lack of sewage treatment of 2 billion fish who
crap in it daily.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 29/08/14 11:29, Huge wrote:
On 2014-08-28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Why should they want anyone to take it of their hands? It can be stored
out in the open above ground.

As TNP says, one of the better solutions would be to dump it in a deep
ocean trench along a fault line, where it can over time be drawn into
the mantle by subduction. There it would join all the other radioactive
material inside the planet.

Of course there'd be a rumpus about that, with a lot of fools talking
about the "pristine ocean", quite overlooking the 10,000 sunken
merchant ships from WW1 and WW2, and the more than 1000 sunken U-boats,
too.

Not to mention what the Russians have already dumped in the sea;

"...some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing
radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain
spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radiactively contaminated heavy
machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded
with nuclear fuel."


And fish still have just the one head..



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

THAT oddly enough I do not believe.

we have a few billion years to find out how to do it, and its quite a
laudable goal.

Sadly, unless human beings are completely different to other animals,
it is extremely unlikely that they will survive for billions of years.
Rationally, it must be assumed that the likely future of the human race
is of the same order of time as their past.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

Not so.
It is impossible to protect against cosmic rays;
and if you look at the figures you will see that even airline pilots
get far above the recommended dose of radiation.
The dose on a return flight to LA is about 0.2mSv,
with an annual maximum dose recommended by the ICRP of 1mSv -
admittedly with an absolute maximum of 50mSv/a for radiation workers.
I have seen reports that ISS astronauts have shown symptoms
of excess radiation damage.

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 29/08/14 12:33, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

THAT oddly enough I do not believe.

we have a few billion years to find out how to do it, and its quite a
laudable goal.

Sadly, unless human beings are completely different to other animals,
it is extremely unlikely that they will survive for billions of years.
Rationally, it must be assumed that the likely future of the human race
is of the same order of time as their past.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

Not so.
It is impossible to protect against cosmic rays;

It is in fact relatively easy.

If they are uncharged neutrinos and pass through everything, they pass
through humans

If they are charged you float a magnetic field around the spaceship.

and if you look at the figures you will see that even airline pilots
get far above the recommended dose of radiation.

Sitting inside a uber thin skin of aluminium, the worst shield imaginable..

The dose on a return flight to LA is about 0.2mSv,
with an annual maximum dose recommended by the ICRP of 1mSv -
admittedly with an absolute maximum of 50mSv/a for radiation workers.
I have seen reports that ISS astronauts have shown symptoms
of excess radiation damage.


yeah well Ive seen reports that Chernbobyl is still emitting iodine 131
25 years after any reaction that could possibly produce it has stopped.

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

No, he needs a lot more education to begin to understand it!

On Thursday, 28 August 2014 23:10:28 UTC+1, Timothy Murphy wrote:




Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

I bet yuor ancestors claimed man couldn't travel faster than 20..30 MPH.
Heavier than air vehcals will never fly, and it's impossible for a bumble be to fly.

People can be proteced from radiation. Some protection can be brought in stores today, some might need lead and other substances.

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.
Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Why should they want anyone to take it of their hands? It can be stored
out in the open above ground.

As TNP says, one of the better solutions would be to dump it in a deep
ocean trench along a fault line, where it can over time be drawn into
the mantle by subduction. There it would join all the other radioactive
material inside the planet.

Of course there'd be a rumpus about that, with a lot of fools talking
about the "pristine ocean", quite overlooking the 10,000 sunken
merchant ships from WW1 and WW2, and the more than 1000 sunken U-boats,
too.

They can come and bury it in my back garden for a small (AKA large) fee.
--
bert

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 29/08/14 11:29, Huge wrote:
On 2014-08-28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

People have been trying to deal with nuclear waste even longer,
and haven't come up with any solution.

Well they have actually, glassification has been done in the UK for
power station waste for 20 years now.

Hoping someone will come along one day and take it off their hands.
It's all Micawber - "something will turn up".

Why should they want anyone to take it of their hands? It can be stored
out in the open above ground.

As TNP says, one of the better solutions would be to dump it in a deep
ocean trench along a fault line, where it can over time be drawn into
the mantle by subduction. There it would join all the other radioactive
material inside the planet.

Of course there'd be a rumpus about that, with a lot of fools talking
about the "pristine ocean", quite overlooking the 10,000 sunken
merchant ships from WW1 and WW2, and the more than 1000 sunken U-boats,
too.

Not to mention what the Russians have already dumped in the sea;

"...some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing
radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain
spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radiactively contaminated heavy
machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded
with nuclear fuel."


And fish still have just the one head..



Old wives tail?
--
bert

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I believe Germany imports solar-generated electricity from Spain.

only if you are running aircon.

Are you saying that Germany does not import electricity from Spain?

In my view, the efficiency of solar panels is certain to increase,
and it is already feasible to save solar energy and will become more so.

no it isnt.


http://www.nature.com/news/the-recha...-better-batter
y-1.14815
-------------------------
In 2012, the JCESR hub won US$120 million from the US Department of Energy
to take a leap beyond Li-ion technology. Its stated goal was to make
cells that,
when scaled up to the sort of commercial battery packs used in
electric cars,
would be five times more energy dense than the standard of
the day, and five times cheaper, in just five years.

Goals are nothing like reality.
Bloody hell Even Rodders is talking sense.
--
bert

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. We have known for over 50
years. Buts stupid people wont let us do it.

Perhaps you should breed more geniuses like yourself
until your kind gets into a majority.

Unfortunately the thick ****s breed even faster.
--
bert

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I doubt if the US government would fund this research
unless they thought there was a reasonable chance of it succeeding.
They probably know better than you or me.

Than you certainly. Than me? On matters electrical and power generation,
probably not.

How fortunate that we have you to tell us what to do.

But it must be such a burden to be surrounded by stupid people.

Oh it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys
--
bert

In message , Capitol
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

No, he needs a lot more education to begin to understand it!
I think he needs a lot more education to realise he will never
understand it.

--
bert

Timothy Murphy wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Human beings are not going to get near any star except the sun.
They would die from the radiation for a start.
We are stuck on this planet, I'm afraid.

THAT oddly enough I do not believe.

we have a few billion years to find out how
to do it, and its quite a laudable goal.

Sadly, unless human beings are completely different to other animals,

They clearly are.

it is extremely unlikely that they will survive for billions of years.

We don't know if any of the higher animals have done that yet.

Rationally, it must be assumed that the likely future of
the human race is of the same order of time as their past.

Nothing rational what so ever about that assumption.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

Not so.
It is impossible to protect against cosmic rays;
and if you look at the figures you will see that even airline
pilots get far above the recommended dose of radiation.

All that shows is that the recommended dose is stupid.

The dose on a return flight to LA is about 0.2mSv,
with an annual maximum dose recommended by the ICRP of 1mSv -
admittedly with an absolute maximum of 50mSv/a for radiation workers.
I have seen reports that ISS astronauts have
shown symptoms of excess radiation damage.

But the sort of shielding he was talking about isnt used for them.

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

Ask a physicist in a university near to you to comment on this,
and publish his response here.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

bert wrote:

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

No, he needs a lot more education to begin to understand it!
I think he needs a lot more education to realise he will never
understand it.

How much education do you have, as a matter of interest?
I challenge you to tell us.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Rod Speed wrote:

we have a few billion years to find out how
to do it, and its quite a laudable goal.

Sadly, unless human beings are completely different to other animals,

They clearly are.

That's your opinion because you are a human being.
The DNA of homo sapiens and chimpanzees are 98-99% identical.

it is extremely unlikely that they will survive for billions of years.

We don't know if any of the higher animals have done that yet.

But we can determine how long extinct species survived.
The time for animals as large as us is millions, not billions of years.

Rationally, it must be assumed that the likely future of
the human race is of the same order of time as their past.

Nothing rational what so ever about that assumption.

If you choose a point on a gaussian curve (normal distribution)
it is unlikely to be very far from the centre.
Distributions depending on a large number of factors
are likely to be close to the normal distribution.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

Not so.
It is impossible to protect against cosmic rays;
and if you look at the figures you will see that even airline
pilots get far above the recommended dose of radiation.

All that shows is that the recommended dose is stupid.

People whose only argument against those holding the opposing view
is that their opponents are stupid, are themselves ultra-stupid.

If you have some claim to judge better than the ICRP
(International Commission on Radiological Protection)
let us know.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 30/08/14 10:59, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

Ask a physicist in a university near to you to comment on this,
and publish his response here.

well that is broadly where *I* got it from in the first place.

e.g. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...roff/cajal.pdf

Ok Penrose is a mathematician working in Physics not a physicist as such.

I merely extended it slightly in a logical direction..

As you can at once spot the flaw in Penrose's model - that to look at
the brain as a physical data processing entity which then 'creates' the
physical reality of which the brain is composed, is his fundamental
recursive illogicality.

I.e. if consciousness is producing the illusion of reality,
consciousness itself must exist beyond physical reality.

Consciousness cannot be an emergent property of a brain - the brain is
therefore an emergent property of consciousness..

We think, therefore it is..

etc. etc.

However he does note the problem at least, that if reality as we
understand it is an emergent property of a quantum level reality that is
not localised in space or time, and the actual conciousness is the thing
that crystallizes reality into localised effects, then at some level
space and time themselves are emergent properties of consciousness and
quantum reality.

Which means we *ought* to be able to 'think' ourselves from the here and
now to the there and then.

Patently we don't know how to do this. The question is, can we in some
way learn...?

IN short FTL transport is just on of the aspects of 'why any universe,
why this universe?' problem.

And if the laws that drive it to be 'this universe' rather than any
other are internal to consciousness, not inherent to quantum level
reality itself, can we frig with them?

Obviously we don't have a clue yet., But that doesn't preclude the
possibility that we might.

Frankly instantaneous transport seems more possible than a world run
entirely off renewable energy, for example.

Renewable energy being subject to the laws of classical physics, not a
thing of the quantum world.







--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/08/14 11:18, Timothy Murphy wrote:

If you have some claim to judge better than the ICRP
(International Commission on Radiological Protection)
let us know.

Well there is increasing evidence that in fact we do know better.

The problem is that there is not necessarily a correlation between what
is safe, in reality, what we actually know to be safe, in reality and
what we perceive to be a suitably reassuring level of limits imposed by
a political organisation.

Latest research *suggests* that the underlying assumptions on which all
radiation standards are based may well be completely flawed, and that
the curve of risk versus level is not a simple liner straight line, but
a much more complex one with something of a single dose threshold around
the 200mSV mark, and no real correlation with cumulative dose at all.

Wade Allison's statistics from medical radiotherapy, plus some
experiments with cells in petri dishes and radiation exposure, tend to
reinforce this view, and it's fully consistent with the remarkably LOW
death rate from Chernobyl ...

But at the time standards were laid down we have almost zero data on
chronic low level exposure, which is why to use Allison's terms safety
is based on ALARA (As low as reasonably achievable) rather than AHARS
(AS high as reasonably safe).

Of course ALARA is what it is: a reflection of how little radiation we
can achieve in nuclear power and other nuclear related activities. It
never was a 'safe' limit. It was always 'a target that we are 100%
certain is absolutely safe, and beyond which we cant do anything useful
with radiation anyway'


That it's been leapt upon by the anti-nuclear brigaded as 'safe' and any
minor violation of it no matter how trivial as dangerous and life
threatening, is of course pure commercial and ideological politics, not
reasonable concerns.

Likewise the model used - a linear straight line drawn between '50%
death rate per single exposure down to an origin, is also spun into
'there is no safe limit for radiation'

Which is a bit like saying 'there is no safe limit for the speed of a
car'. And of course that's trivially true. Toddlers have been reversed
over and killed at less than 2mph.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

is a shortened view of Allison's views on this subject.

He identifies up to 1000:1 difference between existing nuclear
regulatory limits and what is in fact 'unsafe'.








--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/08/14 11:58, Huge wrote:
On 2014-08-30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/14 10:59, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able in
some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping out
of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

Ask a physicist in a university near to you to comment on this,
and publish his response here.

well that is broadly where *I* got it from in the first place.

e.g. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...roff/cajal.pdf

Ok Penrose is a mathematician working in Physics not a physicist as such.


And he should stick to his specialism. Quantum effects in microtubules in the
brain, my arse.


well of course there are such effects. There have to be, but the point
is that he is engaged in a circularity.

I've noticed this with Penrose several rimes. He starts off describing
levels of reality beyond the physical, and of which the physical is an
emergent property, an then goes looking in the physical world as if he
hadn't already demolished its primacy.

Its a massive cognitive dissonance IMHO. Theoretically he can accept
alternative descriptions of reality, but when he looks at his hands, he
cant accept that means they are a bloody illusion, and a figment of his
imagination based on an OR interpretation of quantum reality.

Putnam is better: he understands the metaphysics..Quantum theory is very
challenging: we may not yet know what is more real that ordinary
reality, but we now know that ordinary reality is less real than we had
supposed.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If as seems increasingly likely, space, matter , energy and time are
simply emergent qualities of a quantum level reality, we may be able
in some sense to circumvent their restrictions by so to speak stepping
out of them altogether.

Sorry, that is gibberish.

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

Ask a physicist in a university near to you to comment on this,
and publish his response here.

well that is broadly where *I* got it from in the first place.

e.g. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...roff/cajal.pdf

Ok Penrose is a mathematician working in Physics not a physicist as such.

Roger Penrose - whom I know - did not write this article.
As far as I can see it was written by an anaesthetist.
He quotes from Penrose' well-known (and very interesting) book
"The Emperor's New Mind", but there is nothing in that book
remotely like what you said.
The book is basically an attack on Artificial Intelligence,
but Penrose does introduce a highly-speculative theory
concerning "microtubules", which are so small that they could be involved
with quantum effects that could be involved in consciousness.
The main thrust of the book is that Godel's Incompleteness Theorems
make Strong Artificial Intelligence untenable.

Why not write to Roger Penrose and see if he agrees with you?

When I spoke to him last he mentioned that he was worried
that when he agreed to take part in round-table discussions
he was finding the the organisers were likely to have nutters at the table,
who I assume said things rather like you.

Incidentally, I would certainly accept Penrose as an expert on this topic -
he is a General Relativist, which falls in Mathematical Physics.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
bert wrote:

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

No, he needs a lot more education to begin to understand it!
I think he needs a lot more education to realise he will never
understand it.

How much education do you have, as a matter of interest?
I challenge you to tell us.



Enough to agree with TNP.

Timothy Murphy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

we have a few billion years to find out how
to do it, and its quite a laudable goal.

Sadly, unless human beings are completely different to other animals,

They clearly are.

That's your opinion because you are a human being.

Nope, its because no other animal has managed anything
even remotely like the industrial or computer revolutions,
or been able to work out how we all got here, etc etc etc.

The DNA of homo sapiens and chimpanzees are 98-99% identical.

And yet that small difference has seen homo sapiens manage
quite a bit more than chimps have ever managed.

it is extremely unlikely that they will survive for billions of years.

We don't know if any of the higher animals have done that yet.

But we can determine how long extinct species survived.

Sure, but don't know how long the ones that have not gone extinct yet will.

By definition, the ones that have gone extinct weren't
as successful as the ones that have not yet gone extinct.

The time for animals as large as us is millions, not billions of years.

Only because they haven't been around that long yet.

Rationally, it must be assumed that the likely future of
the human race is of the same order of time as their past.

Nothing rational what so ever about that assumption.

If you choose a point on a gaussian curve (normal distribution)
it is unlikely to be very far from the centre.

But you don't know that we can actually see
anything more than a small part of the curve yet.

Distributions depending on a large number of factors
are likely to be close to the normal distribution.

But you don't know how much of it is visible yet.

Radiation is easily solved with shielding.

Not so.
It is impossible to protect against cosmic rays;
and if you look at the figures you will see that even airline
pilots get far above the recommended dose of radiation.

All that shows is that the recommended dose is stupid.

People whose only argument against those holding the opposing
view is that their opponents are stupid, are themselves ultra-stupid.

It isnt the only argument. By definition, if we don't
see any major health problems with airline pilots, the
recommended dose must be much too conservative.

If you have some claim to judge better than the ICRP
(International Commission on Radiological Protection)
let us know.

We have the evidence of all those airline pilots doing fine health wise.

On 28/08/2014 13:49, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If every household had a 100kwh car -all 20million of them - and that's
50 grand per household investment at todays prices, so we have a total
of 2000 GWh, that would power the country on average for about three
weeks.
....
And the cost would be around £1 trillion.

10^12 / 20x10^6 = 50,000.

So you think the batteries in an electric car cost £50,000?
The new Mitsubishi-Nissan electric car is going to cost
$14,598.00 = £8,805.87 in Japan.
http://transportevolved.com/2014/08/05/mitsubishi-nissan-confirm-low-cost-electric-car-partnership/
And that's the whole car.

You seem to pick your figures out of a hat.


A Nissan leaf holds 24kWH - he's talking about batteries of 4 times the
capacity. Heaven knows what the batteries cost though, you have to lease
them.

If you have figures for a car-sized pack you can buy please share them.
I know what tool packs cost, and they are tiny.

Andy

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
bert wrote:

Its not, but you might need a bit more education to understand it.

No, he needs a lot more education to begin to understand it!
I think he needs a lot more education to realise he will never
understand it.

How much education do you have, as a matter of interest?
I challenge you to tell us.


Enough to know that I do not understand this particular subject and you
could probably count on one hand the number who do.
--
bert

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I've noticed this with Penrose several rimes. He starts off describing
levels of reality beyond the physical, and of which the physical is an
emergent property, an then goes looking in the physical world as if he
hadn't already demolished its primacy.

Its a massive cognitive dissonance IMHO. Theoretically he can accept
alternative descriptions of reality, but when he looks at his hands, he
cant accept that means they are a bloody illusion, and a figment of his
imagination based on an OR interpretation of quantum reality.

That doesn't sound like Penrose at all to me.
His work (in mathematical physics) is a fairly straightforward examination
of the consequences of Einstein's theory.
I think he was the first to show that black holes must occur
if Einstein's space-time equations are correct.

I don't think he works in quantum theory at all.
In fact he seems to share Einstein's doubts about that theory.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Wade Allison's statistics from medical radiotherapy, plus some
experiments with cells in petri dishes and radiation exposure, tend to
reinforce this view, and it's fully consistent with the remarkably LOW
death rate from Chernobyl ...

I don't agree with your general argument.
As with global warming, the overwhelming view of experts in the field
is that the effects of radiation are linear,
and this falls in with the idea that the damage is caused
by single particles or photons damaging DNA or other cells.

But in the case of Chernobyl, and even more so Fukushima,
I think the levels of radiation are far lower than is generally thought.
I read that the level in most of the evacuated zone around Fukushima
is around 6mSv/a ,
while the _average_ level in Ireland is 4mSv/a (because of radon/thoron).
So if the same rule was followed large areas of Ireland should be evacuated.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 30/08/14 22:48, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I've noticed this with Penrose several rimes. He starts off describing
levels of reality beyond the physical, and of which the physical is an
emergent property, an then goes looking in the physical world as if he
hadn't already demolished its primacy.

Its a massive cognitive dissonance IMHO. Theoretically he can accept
alternative descriptions of reality, but when he looks at his hands, he
cant accept that means they are a bloody illusion, and a figment of his
imagination based on an OR interpretation of quantum reality.

That doesn't sound like Penrose at all to me.
His work (in mathematical physics) is a fairly straightforward examination
of the consequences of Einstein's theory.
I think he was the first to show that black holes must occur
if Einstein's space-time equations are correct.

I don't think he works in quantum theory at all.
In fact he seems to share Einstein's doubts about that theory.

Oh dear. Try a bit of research


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/08/14 22:58, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Wade Allison's statistics from medical radiotherapy, plus some
experiments with cells in petri dishes and radiation exposure, tend to
reinforce this view, and it's fully consistent with the remarkably LOW
death rate from Chernobyl ...

I don't agree with your general argument.
As with global warming, the overwhelming view of experts in the field
is that the effects of radiation are linear,

No that is not the overwhelming view of exerts. Its the overwhelming
view of people who are NOT experts. Which is falsely held to be
supported by the fact that the safety regulations treat radiation as if
it was linear, with absolutely NO experimental justification for it.

Those 'self style 'experts' predicted upwards to a quarter of a million
deaths from Chernobyl. At most the figure is less than one hundred
verified cases.

ALL the evidence is angaints LNT as a scientific theory.


and this falls in with the idea that the damage is caused
by single particles or photons damaging DNA or other cells.


Except that it isn't. DNA self repairs. You need two damage events to
kill it and a very lucky two events to cause a mutation. It seems nature
has been cunning and keeps a copy of the DNA. If the two copies don't
match, in general the cell just dies.

In order to get cancers you need two almost identical mutations in each
half. The chances are vanishingly small, which is how the body survives
the 50 radioactive decay events a second its own potassium carbon and
caesium generates.




But in the case of Chernobyl, and even more so Fukushima,
I think the levels of radiation are far lower than is generally thought.
I read that the level in most of the evacuated zone around Fukushima
is around 6mSv/a ,
while the _average_ level in Ireland is 4mSv/a (because of radon/thoron).
So if the same rule was followed large areas of Ireland should be evacuated.


No the levels are exactly what were predicted. The Japanese are cleaning
Fuku up to 1msv/yr over normal background. Which is about 3msV/yr

Round Chernobyl its up around 30msV/yr except near the actual reactor,
and the odd 'hotspots' which are higher.


Which is about as radioactive as dartmoor. Which is MORE dangerous
because its inhalable natural radon.

ALL the evidence is that up to 300msv in a single dose its virtually
100% safe. and 200msV in a year is edging towards 'detectable effects'
in terms of cancer.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/08/14 23:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

I don't think he works in quantum theory at all.
In fact he seems to share Einstein's doubts about that theory.

I wouldn't describe Einstein as having "doubts"; he simply didn't
*like* the notion, which is something completely different.

The issue is that quantum theory, like relativity, *works*. Therefore
it's a good theory. What is needed is a marriage between the two, as
was done for electricity and magnetism by Maxwell. So far no one knows
how to do that.

True. Quantum theory gives the right answers but the real horror is that
the equations that give the right answers don't seem to make sense in
terms of how we view the world.

Which is where metaphysics comes in. Putnam has argued that the logic of
the normal world doesn't apply to the quantum world. Penrose is trying
to bridge the gap with speculation.

I stand somewhat between, in saying that the easiest way out is to look
at the classical world of things/phenomena in space time as simply a
human way to map a really weird quantum reality into something we can
deal with. That is, space time energy and matter are human ways of
looking at something that isn't any of the above, and exists in a
completely different way.

True reality as it were, exists beyond and behind these things, and has
as Putnam suggest, a totally different logic.

That means if we can tap that level somehow, we *might* using quantum
level manipulations actually circumvent the laws that seem to apply to
the 'real' world so called.

As to what that might enable us to do, no one knows and I certainly
don't. What I do know is that stuff we already know about that has to
obey the laws of classical physics has certain limits that can't be
broken. If quantum level stuff doesn't have to obey those laws, who
knows what might be possible?

No one expected nuclear power to emerge out of atomic level
interactions. Or transistors and lasers to emerge out of subatomic level
interactions. But they did and have been the most transformative
technologies in the last 70 years.

I dint know what will pop out next - quantum computing maybe - but I do
expect it to be utterly unexpected :-)

That's why CEREN is so damned important. Its new territory and in new
territory you never know what useful stuff you may discover.

By the way Penrose is doing mathematics so pure it might almost be
numerology. He isn't solving the equations, he's looking at certain
sorts of equations that have the right 'shape' or 'quality' to describe
quantum level stuff.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll