On 27/12/2017 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't know
the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.


That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...

You often trot out your defence of 'meaningless' when you don't
understand something, in this case a simple wiki page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

Are the words too long for your vocabulary?

Bill Wright wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote

Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

They had to call it philosophy because they hadn't really figured out
about doing proper experiments and that (well at best it was early days)
so they had to kinda guess about why things were as they were

Thats not true of early medicine, they were free to dissect corpses
and do simple stuff like applying a tourniquet and seeing that that
stops the blood flow etc.

and that's what philosophy is really. Just chewing the fat and getting
nowhere.

Early science got somewhere, particularly with medicine.

It's another of those devices that otherwise unemployable people use to
get a salary out of the those of us who actually do a job that benefits
humanity.

The early ones weren't paid to do it. And the early
medical practitioners did benefit humanity.

It's the same with linguistics.

Nope.

They only invented that because the Indo-European theory was wearing a bit
thin and otherwise there would have been a lot of profs out of work.

Academics dont work like that.

Can't have profs doing proper jobs, not the done thing, so they invented
linguistics. Remember when plate tectonics came in? A lot of profs had two
choices: either disown their life's work or get the sack. Most of them
managed to make the transition. I don't know if they actually burnt their
own books. The next one will be when the tide turns against global warming
as caused by mankind. A few foolhardy youngsters will speak out; most will
be blackballed but a few won't; gradually the consensus will drift just as
the magnetic poles drift, then like the poles there will be a sudden flip.
Luckily by then most of the people who've made their money from global
warming will be retired, so the damage won't be too bad. I suppose a few
guys in their late 50s who were a bit slow on the uptake will be the
collateral damage, but to be honest I think they'll deserve it for
clinging on and propagating the bull**** long after they should have kept
quiet. The sensible thing is to be like the Vicar of Bray.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 02:17:40 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 25/12/2017 05:14, Iggy wrote:
replying to Bill Wright, Iggy wrote: Lies, Liars and Frauds...to
put it precisely. Space "science" (laughable non-science) is the
biggest bunch of contradictions ever. They claim authority,
simply make an outlandish statement, never provide any proof nor
duplication and the droolers obey. They tell us only what Real
Science has duplicated and measured, though their patently
ridiculous Big Bang crushed it all. Therefore, your speeds can't
exist...according to them. However, your speeds must and do
exist...according to them.

Did you check or proof read your ramblings before pressing return in
your website, using dated software?

You come across as not having a clue. Quoting text might have helped,
though perhaps not!

I think the value of these (and other) off-topic ramblings is to
make it easy to populate the kill file quickly.

On 27/12/2017 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global
warming over the next few decades.

No it won't, you'll be dead.

Might be, might not. Who knows?

You'll certainly be dead before AGW significantly changes.

Bill Wright wrote:

What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

The units are irrelevant, it's just 1.0 speed of light per unit time.

On 27/12/2017 20:10, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

The units are irrelevant, it's just 1.0 speed of light per unit time.

No, that would be an acceleration.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/2017 08:58, Woody wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative
universes exist in which some or all of those constants have
different values.

There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.



Ursa Minor maybe?


Edlington



My godparents used to run the general store there, and eventually
lived in a new house on the site of the former vicarage alongside Old
Edlington Church.

Small world eh?


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:47:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/12/17 12:49, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 13:43:50 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

====snip====

Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

He's long been just "A Ghost in the Machine" afaiac in this NG but I
always thought that monicker was a matter of irony whether by accident
or design.

Just goes to show how wrong you are on all counts really

I guess your 6 months of being ignored in this NG must have just
expired. Either that or else there's another, totally different "You"
posting in uk.d-i-y, that I've ignored forever. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On 27/12/2017 17:01, Rod Speed wrote:

It's the same with linguistics.

Nope.

Can't argue with logic like that.

Bill

On 27/12/2017 17:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global
warming over the next few decades.

No it won't, you'll be dead.

Might be, might not. Who knows?

You'll certainly be dead before AGW significantly changes.


It's already changing, and so are public attitudes. You can fool all of
the people some of the time...
When someone makes a reference to global warming these days it's usually
ironic, and it gets a laugh.
By 'someone' I mean a real person, not one of the shills that seem to
get on television to the exclusion of those who dare speak the truth.

Bill

On 27/12/2017 21:11, Woody wrote:

My godparents used to run the general store there, and eventually
lived in a new house on the site of the former vicarage alongside Old
Edlington Church.

Small world eh?

My connections with Edlington are limited to the fact that on the rare
occasions when the police are able to retrieve our stolen property
that's usually where they find it.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/2017 17:01, Rod Speed wrote:

It's the same with linguistics.

Nope.

Can't argue with logic like that.

Says he carefully deleting everything.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/2017 17:51, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

No it won't, you'll be dead.

Might be, might not. Who knows?

You'll certainly be dead before AGW significantly changes.


It's already changing, and so are public attitudes.

You can fool all of the people some of the time...

Nope.

When someone makes a reference to global warming these days it's usually
ironic, and it gets a laugh.

By 'someone' I mean a real person, not one of the shills that seem to get
on television to the exclusion of those who dare speak the truth.

On 27/12/17 16:49, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/12/2017 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't
know the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.


That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...

You often trot out your defence of 'meaningless' when you don't
understand something, in this case a simple wiki page?

reveals nothing to do with what you said at all...

Â* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

Are the words too long for your vocabulary?


what are you on about?

On 27/12/17 15:38, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/12/2017 05:55, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 27/12/17 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global
warming over the next few decades.

like watching paint dry?

already people are bored with it: its lost the power to amaze, so it
will be replaced by something else.

but its got nothing to do with science so I don't know why you
introduced it.

As an example of a bandwagon. Like the hoola hoop.

Bill

hula hoop

On 27/12/17 16:02, newshound wrote:
On 25/12/2017 08:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:59, newshound wrote:
On 24/12/2017 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find
the answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._wave_equation

then look up permittivity and permeability of free space

But that doesnt do more than transform the question into 'why is that
the value of the permittivity and permeability of free space'?



No, but it tells you there are other more fundamantal measurable
parameters which have particular values, and these fix the speed of
light. So it takes you back one step.

well not really, since you might just as well say that these constants
are in fact due to the speed of light....

On 27/12/2017 23:33, Bill Wright wrote:

It's already changing

As usual, no reference, so, as usual, this is wishful thinking stated as
though it were fact, which, of course, it is not. Details such as
timescales will hopefully become clearer, modelling will hopefully
improve, but the basic thrust of AGW will not significantly change
before you snuff it.

and so are public attitudes.

Public attitudes change all the time, but you didn't mention anything
about them in your OP, you just said 'anthropogenic global warming', so
as usual this is an attempt to move the goalposts.

You can fool all of
the people some of the time...

But when it comes to AGW, denialists can fool you all of the time,
because your attitude to it is devotional rather than rational.

When someone makes a reference to global warming these days it's usually
ironic, and it gets a laugh.
That just demonstrates the well-known phenomenon that like many others
you gather as a circle of acquaintances and friends people who reinforce
your own beliefs, no matter how idiotic these may seem to the rest of
the world.

By 'someone' I mean a real person, not one of the shills that seem to
get on television to the exclusion of those who dare speak the truth.

That's because the people whom you call 'shills' are actually the people
speaking the truth.

Your pathetic irrational, unscientific **** has no place in a technical
and scientific newsgroup, take it elsewhere - form a new newsgroup
called something like ...
uk.agw.denialist.potheads
.... where you can talk to other idiots without offending normal,
rational people.

On 28/12/2017 02:46, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 27/12/17 16:49, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/12/2017 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't
know the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.


That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...

You often trot out your defence of 'meaningless' when you don't
understand something, in this case a simple wiki page?

reveals nothing to do with what you said at all...

Then you don't understand the concept that the 26 constants mentioned by
Tim might actually change over time, or be dependent on something we
don't yet understand.

Â*Â* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

Are the words too long for your vocabulary?


what are you on about?

Does this help?
"vocabulary" A language user's knowledge of words

You are NT, or just come to his rescue, when he feels you need rescuing?

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 12:44:49 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/12/2017 23:33, Bill Wright wrote:

It's already changing

As usual, no reference, so, as usual, this is wishful thinking stated as
though it were fact, which, of course, it is not. Details such as
timescales will hopefully become clearer, modelling will hopefully
improve, but the basic thrust of AGW will not significantly change
before you snuff it.

and so are public attitudes.

Public attitudes change all the time, but you didn't mention anything
about them in your OP, you just said 'anthropogenic global warming', so
as usual this is an attempt to move the goalposts.

You can fool all of
the people some of the time...

But when it comes to AGW, denialists can fool you all of the time,
because your attitude to it is devotional rather than rational.

When someone makes a reference to global warming these days it's usually
ironic, and it gets a laugh.
That just demonstrates the well-known phenomenon that like many others
you gather as a circle of acquaintances and friends people who reinforce
your own beliefs, no matter how idiotic these may seem to the rest of
the world.

By 'someone' I mean a real person, not one of the shills that seem to
get on television to the exclusion of those who dare speak the truth.

That's because the people whom you call 'shills' are actually the people
speaking the truth.

Your pathetic irrational, unscientific **** has no place in a technical
and scientific newsgroup, take it elsewhere - form a new newsgroup
called something like ...
uk.agw.denialist.potheads
... where you can talk to other idiots without offending normal,
rational people.

oh the irony.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:38:57 +0000, brightside S9 wrote:

What do reckon to this then?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...-activity-may-
bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

I don't need "studies" to tell me I'm freezing my nuts off more and more
with each passing year. I only need to look out the ****ing window.
Global warming = my arse.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 12:56:43 UTC, Fredxx wrote:

You are NT,

I find it hard to believe anyone will buy that

or just come to his rescue, when he feels you need rescuing?

I'm pretty sure I've never been 'rescued' by TNP, whatever precisely that means. I don't agree with TNP all the time, but he gets a fair bit right and I think you'll find we're both grown ups.


NT

On 28/12/2017 14:38, brightside S9 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:44:43 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

What do reckon to this then?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...e-age-by-2030/

Interesting, but the emphasis on solar cycles is overdone, see below.
However, let's deal with the obvious *error* first ...

"Dr Helen Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human
influence on climate.

€œThere is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human
activity. The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were
five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years.
People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago."

This is a total non-sequitor. Obviously human activity can not have
influenced climate before humans even evolved, but you can't extrapolate
from that to say that humans do not influence climate now and/or will
not into the future. On the contrary, we have a pretty good
understanding of how atmospheric CO2 and methane, from WHATEVER source,
act as greenhouse gases, and so produce warming, and we know that human
activity is producing copious amounts of CO2 and methane, so to say
"There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human
activity" MUST be false, because otherwise we have to assume that there
is some sort of 'magic' that makes human-produced atmospheric CO2 and
methane behave differently from the same gases produced by other means,
which is clearly an absurdity.

In fact, the cycles of ice ages and warming fit best with the
comparatively well understood Milankovitch cycles of Earth's orbital
variations. By comparison, historically solar cycles seem to have had
much less influence - why do you think it's called "The Little Ice
Age", and not "The Big Ice Age"? I note that Dr Popova's final quote
reads "we can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more
time or a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to
prepare [for] when the Sun will return to normal activity"

So an interesting and relevant article, but certainly not a game-changer
that will rewrite existing science.

On 28/12/17 15:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 12:44:49 UTC, Java JiveÂ* wrote:
On 27/12/2017 23:33, Bill Wright wrote:
It's already changing

As usual, no reference, so, as usual, this is wishful thinking stated
as though it were fact, which, of course, it is not.Â* Details such as
timescales will hopefully become clearer, modelling will hopefully
improve, but the basic thrust of AGW will not significantly change
before you snuff it.

and so are public attitudes.

Public attitudes change all the time, but you didn't mention anything
about them in your OP, you just said 'anthropogenic global warming',
so as usual this is an attempt to move the goalposts.

You can fool all of the people some of the time...

But when it comes to AGW, denialists can fool you all of the time,
because your attitude to it is devotional rather than rational.

When someone makes a reference to global warming these days it's
usually ironic, and it gets a laugh.
That just demonstrates the well-known phenomenon that like many
others you gather as a circle of acquaintances and friends people who
reinforce your own beliefs, no matter how idiotic these may seem to
the rest of the world.

By 'someone' I mean a real person, not one of the shills that seem
to get on television to the exclusion of those who dare speak the
truth.

That's because the people whom you call 'shills' are actually the
people speaking the truth.

Your pathetic irrational, unscientific **** has no place in a
technical and scientific newsgroup, take it elsewhereÂ* -Â* form a new
newsgroup called something like ...
Â* uk.agw.denialist.potheads
... where you can talk to other idiots without offending normal,
rational people.

oh the irony.

Well it's Java Jive, what d'ye expect. You'll note the total lack of
evidence in the post, just rhetoric.

I just updated my killfile to include him.



--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:31:08 +0000
GB wrote:

On 25/12/2017 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:

... life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.

"Life as we know it" - to more or less quote Dr Spock.

Mister Spock - the doctor was a child behaviourist.

On 28/12/2017 16:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 28/12/2017 14:38, brightside S9 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:44:43 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

What do reckon to this then?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...e-age-by-2030/


Interesting, but the emphasis on solar cycles is overdone, see below.
However, let's deal with the obvious *error* first ...

So it's Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Dr Helen Popova
of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Dr Sergei Zarkhov of Hull
University

VERSUS

The Sage of Loch Shin

Seconds out!

Bill

On 27/12/2017 16:49, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/12/2017 14:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/17 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
I do think any claim that there are 26 "constants", when we don't
know the origin of these numbers, is a bit risky.


That sounds intelligent, but on close examination, it is completely
meaningless.

Then I looked at the poster...

You often trot out your defence of 'meaningless' when you don't
understand something, in this case a simple wiki page?
Â* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-v...ntal_constants

Constants aren't, and variables don't, as they say.

--
Max Demian

On 28/12/2017 15:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

I don't need "studies" to tell me I'm freezing my nuts off more and more
with each passing year. I only need to look out the ****ing window.
Global warming = my arse.

You will always get short-term variations from year to year, it's the
long-term trend over many decades into centuries that matters. Besides,
it's winter at the moment, and winter is usually cold. Also, as you get
older, lack of circulation tends to make you feel the cold more.

On 28/12/2017 18:08, Bill Wright wrote:

So it's Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University

No

Dr Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University

Yes

Dr Sergei Zarkhov of Hull University

No

VERSUS

Someone with a First-class Honours in Mathematics & Computing, and
therefore, by implication, logic. The statement was a provable error of
logic - since assuming its truth leads to an absurdity, it must be false.

On 29/12/2017 02:03, Java Jive wrote:

Someone with a First-class Honours in Mathematics & Computing, and
therefore, by implication, logic.Â* The statement was a provable error of
logicÂ* -Â* since assuming its truth leads to an absurdity, it must be false.

Someone with a big head I reckon. Lots of knowledge and no sense.

Bill

Java Jive wrote:

On 28/12/2017 15:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

I don't need "studies" to tell me I'm freezing my nuts off more and more
with each passing year. I only need to look out the ****ing window.
Global warming = my arse.

You will always get short-term variations from year to year, it's the
long-term trend over many decades into centuries that matters. Besides,
it's winter at the moment, and winter is usually cold. Also, as you get
older, lack of circulation tends to make you feel the cold more.

Where I am we have had about eight very mild winters in a row, after of
couple of years of prolonged snow and ice about ten years ago.
Needless to say, I draw no particular conclusions from this.

--

Roger Hayter

On Friday, 29 December 2017 02:03:17 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 28/12/2017 18:08, Bill Wright wrote:

So it's Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University

No

Dr Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University

Yes

Dr Sergei Zarkhov of Hull University

No

VERSUS

Someone with a First-class Honours in Mathematics & Computing, and
therefore, by implication, logic. The statement was a provable error of
logic - since assuming its truth leads to an absurdity, it must be false.

From what I've seen of students with relatively good degrees it doesn't prove any such thing.


NT

On 29/12/2017 02:21, Bill Wright wrote:

Someone with a big head I reckon. Lots of knowledge and no sense.

So what are your scientific qualification then? If I'm big-headed, what
does that make you?! Big-arsed I guess, as you're always talking
through it.

On 28/12/2017 18:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 28/12/2017 16:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 28/12/2017 14:38, brightside S9 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:44:43 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

What do reckon to this then?
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...e-age-by-2030/


Interesting, but the emphasis on solar cycles is overdone, see below.
However, let's deal with the obvious *error* first ...

So it's Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Dr Helen Popova
of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Dr Sergei Zarkhov of Hull
University

VERSUS

The Sage of Loch Shin

Seconds out!


Its not clear what you are trying to say. The post seemed very
reasonable to me.

Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

The speed of electromagnetic waves (in vacuum) is set by the speed
built into the underlying spacetime metric, usually denote "c".

Many physicists, particularly theorists, happily (and without introducing
any ambiguity) set this to 1, because they are not tied to any traditional
set of unit conventions. However, back in a more practical environment,
we have to work with pre-existing units such as meters and seconds.

Those physicists who have particular expertise in measurements decided
that since it is easier to measure times accurately, that would be best
to first define the second, and then tweak the definition of the meter
slightly so that c in everyday SI units was exactly 299 792 458 m/s.

If you want, feel free to convert c into furlongs/fortnight, or whatever
other crazy units take your fancy. But our second and meter definitions
mean that c = 299 792 458 m/s.


#Paul