In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore

Or so some might have to believe:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/growi...s-temperature/

Scientific facts don't change with the fashions.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

Or so some might have to believe:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/growi...s-temperature/

Scientific facts don't change with the fashions.

John Savard
===================================
Oh yes they do, Savard.
In fact the scientific facts have been changing since Copernicus moved the
Sun to the centre of the universe and Kepler got rid of circular orbits when
powdered wigs went out of fashion. Einstein's relativity will go out of
fashion when the scientific fact of all you sheep being idiots is
discovered.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
===============================================
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On Feb 16, 7:05*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
Or so some might have to believe:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/growi...n-dioxide-rais...

Scientific facts don't change with the fashions.

John Savard

And yet they were all in a tizzy in the early 70's about global
cooling. BTW, why did "global warming" become "climate change?"

On Feb 17, 10:15*pm, RichA wrote:

And yet they were all in a tizzy in the early 70's about global
cooling. *BTW, why did "global warming" become "climate change?"

It's a euphemism adopted under the barrage of attacks from oil company
shills.

John Savard

On Feb 18, 4:28*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:15*pm, RichA wrote:

And yet they were all in a tizzy in the early 70's about global
cooling. *BTW, why did "global warming" become "climate change?"

It's a euphemism adopted under the barrage of attacks from oil company
shills.

A shill is someone who acts as a decoy or plant for a scam such as a
shell game.

However, the oil industry isn't really a shell game. The consumption
of oil and oil-dependent products, either directly or indirectly, is
overwhelmingly advantageous for virtually all individuals. There is
no trickery involved.

If you look around you will see many items and services in your own
day-to-day existence that you would not have were it not for the
fossil fuel industry. A PC with an Internet connection is among them.

On Feb 19, 2:20*am, wrote:

However, the oil industry isn't really a shell game. *The consumption
of oil and oil-dependent products, either directly or indirectly, is
overwhelmingly advantageous for virtually all individuals. *There is
no trickery involved.

If you look around you will see many items and services in your own
day-to-day existence that you would not have were it not for the
fossil fuel industry. A PC with an Internet connection is among them.

I agree that plentiful supplies of energy are needed for modern
living.

But that fact *in no way* is inconsistent with the assertion that if
current carbon dioxide emission rates continue, in a few decades there
will be climate change sufficient to cause widespread hunger in areas
like India and Southeast Asia.

There's just no connection between the two facts. The Universe isn't
obligated to make life convenient for people.

However, we just happen to be in luck.

A PC with an Internet connection can be powered by a hydroelectric
dam, for those of us fortunate enough to live in certain areas. I am
not; electricity where I live used to be provided by natural gas; now,
it comes from coal. But such areas can get carbon-free electricity,
without resorting to plans to bring wind power from the opposite end
of the continent when the wind is not blowing.

You see, there is this substance known as Uranium-235 which can be
used to boil water and drive turbines... and you can also make
Plutonium-239 from Uranium-238, and Uranium-233 from Thorium-232, both
of which can do the same thing... and so there's plenty of electricity
available for hundreds of years.

Also, you can split hydrogen from water with electricity. Then you can
use that hydrogen to turn carbon dioxide into methane by the Sabatier
process, and then turn the methane into motor fuel by the Fischer-
Tropsch process.

So we can live just as before, with the same cars, with prosperity and
convenience and everything.

We just have to find the political will to do it, including protecting
our domestic industries from unfair competition from countries that
still use cheaper fossil fuels (condensing carbon dioxide out of the
air is still pricey compared to just burning something to make it,
which defeats the purpose).

John Savard

On Feb 19, 3:08*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:20*am, wrote:

However, the oil industry isn't really a shell game. *The consumption
of oil and oil-dependent products, either directly or indirectly, is
overwhelmingly advantageous for virtually all individuals. *There is
no trickery involved.

If you look around you will see many items and services in your own
day-to-day existence that you would not have were it not for the
fossil fuel industry. A PC with an Internet connection is among them.

I agree that plentiful supplies of energy are needed for modern
living.

But that fact *in no way* is inconsistent with the assertion that if
current carbon dioxide emission rates continue, in a few decades there
will be climate change sufficient to cause widespread hunger in areas
like India and Southeast Asia.

Without fossil fuel it is highly unlikely that we will be able to grow
and transport enough food to feed ourselves at the current population
levels.

There's just no connection between the two facts.

You missed the point. A PC with Internet connection is not necessary
for you. You don't need one and the one(s) you have are contributing
to CO2 levels.

The Universe isn't
obligated to make life convenient for people.

It isn't obligated to provide them with PCs and Internet either.

However, we just happen to be in luck.

Not really.

A PC with an Internet connection can be powered by a hydroelectric
dam, for those of us fortunate enough to live in certain areas.

That isn't how things work or should work. Your electricity comes
from a GRID that gets electricity from a variety of sources. Unless
you actually own a hydro plant, you can have no first claim on its
electricity output. You are merely a customer of the utility.

I am
not; electricity where I live used to be provided by natural gas; now,
it comes from coal.

Remember, you are on a GRID.

But such areas can get carbon-free electricity,
without resorting to plans to bring wind power from the opposite end
of the continent when the wind is not blowing.

Remember, you are on a GRID.

You see, there is this substance known as Uranium-235 which can be
used to boil water and drive turbines... and you can also make
Plutonium-239 from Uranium-238, and Uranium-233 from Thorium-232, both
of which can do the same thing... and so there's plenty of electricity
available for hundreds of years.

Yes, we have all heard of uranium. It is mined, transported,
processed, stored by devices that run on FOSSIL FUELS.

Also, you can split hydrogen from water with electricity. Then you can
use that hydrogen to turn carbon dioxide into methane by the Sabatier
process, and then turn the methane into motor fuel by the Fischer-
Tropsch process.

You will have to provide a proof of concept showing that the net
energy extracted is greater, much greater, than the FOSSIL FUEL inputs
into your scheme. I think "scheme" is the perfect word for it.

So we can live just as before, with the same cars, with prosperity and
convenience and everything.

While still having to use FOSSIL FUEL to keep the whole works
operating.

We just have to find the political will to do it, including protecting
our domestic industries from unfair competition from countries that
still use cheaper fossil fuels

It is good to for you to finally admit that fossil fuels are cheaper.
That should go a long way in getting you to understand that you are
contributing to a problem that you perceive to be all-important, and
that perhaps a PC would be way down on your list of priorities once
the price of food, clothing and shelter goes through the roof because
we intentionally went down the path you outlined.

On Feb 20, 3:39*am, wrote:
once
the price of food, clothing and shelter goes through the roof because
we intentionally went down the path you outlined.

As I've pointed out, we have a choice. We can produce nuclear power,
to replace fossil fuel uses - some more easily than others. There's
plenty of low-hanging fruit. Uranium has a very concentrated energy
content, much more than fossil fuels, so hauling it to power plants
won't be a net energy loss.

John Savard

On 2/20/13 9:37 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
As I've pointed out, we have a choice. We can produce nuclear power,
to replace fossil fuel uses - some more easily than others. There's
plenty of low-hanging fruit. Uranium has a very concentrated energy
content, much more than fossil fuels, so hauling it to power plants
won't be a net energy loss.

John Savard


I agree that there is a place for nuclear, however...

Nuclear Power Cannot Compete with Cheap Shale Gas
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/s...ar-power-15614

LONDON – Nuclear power stations in Canada and the United States are
closing because they cannot compete with cheap power being produced
from shale gas.

This revolution in the way North America produces its electricity is
sending shock waves through the nuclear industry in Europe too. New
nuclear build will be spectacularly uneconomic if a fracking industry
is successful in the United Kingdom.

Gas prices would tumble as they have across the Atlantic. Even the
existing nuclear stations in France, Belgium and the UK would find
themselves struggling to compete, especially if they need investment
to achieve modern safety standards.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Feb 20, 3:39 am, wrote:
once
the price of food, clothing and shelter goes through the roof because
we intentionally went down the path you outlined.

As I've pointed out, we have a choice. We can produce nuclear power,
to replace fossil fuel uses - some more easily than others. There's
plenty of low-hanging fruit. Uranium has a very concentrated energy
content, much more than fossil fuels, so hauling it to power plants
won't be a net energy loss.

John Savard
==================================
Low-hanging fruit? You may be a primate but I'm not swinging through the
branches, Tarzan.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.