Global Warming - Page 18

Blade · #**171** (**permalink**) 01-29-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

1) Physicists already know that general relativity is an approximation because it does not model gravity at quantum levels.

That's completely bogus. At "quantum levels", gravity is so weak compared to other forces present that nobody could devise an experiment to show how well it "works" in that domain, and nobody has ever said that it is incorrect.

Quote:

Newtons' equations work just fine when determining the orbits of satellites and asteroids, so the Newton's equations can't be wrong.

You're just blowing past what I said about Mercury, that it's orbit was known to be anomalous way back in the nineteenth century.

Quote:

3)You asked for a scientist that said the debate is over. I provided a name. What degree you have or do for a living is irrelevant.

You didn't name a scientist, but rather a historian. Then you tried to justify your claim by saying he had a degree in physics. I pointed out that I do as well, as do many who aren't thereby scientists.

MannieD · #**172** (**permalink**) 01-30-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

1) Physicists already know that general relativity is an approximation because it does not model gravity at quantum levels. Newtons' equations work just fine when determining the orbits of satellites and asteroids, so the Newton's equations can't be wrong.
2)never said climate was a theory. I posted that climate is being observed, just as rocks falling from the sky are being observed.
3)You asked for a scientist that said the debate is over. I provided a name. What degree you have or do for a living is irrelevant.
4) So you agree that scientists can sometimes claim that the debate is over?

That's completely bogus. At "quantum levels", gravity is so weak compared to other forces present that nobody could devise an experiment to show how well it "works" in that domain, and nobody has ever said that it is incorrect.

Except at the singularity in the center of a black hole, which is where QM and relativity have a problem agreeing. Any undergrad in physics is aware of the problem. Where did you say you got your physics degree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

You're just blowing past what I said about Mercury, that it's orbit was known to be anomalous way back in the nineteenth century.

And you're ignoring my evidence that Newton's theory is used successfully to plot orbits of satellites. If Newton's theory was wrong, then it could not be used to successfully plot orbits of satellites. Therefore, relativity is a refinement of an older theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

You didn't name a scientist, but rather a historian. Then you tried to justify your claim by saying he had a degree in physics. I pointed out that I do as well, as do many who aren't thereby scientists.

Anyone with a Physics degree is scientist.
Nice try trying to change the subject. Bottom line is that scientists do achknowledge that the debate is over.

ABoyNamedSue · #**173** (**permalink**) 01-30-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blacksheep1232

Mabye you should consider using a "blade" on yourself.

Maybe you should consider shortening your name to just "sheep," if you're going to just blindly agree with one side of an issue, and ignore the other.

Blade · #**174** (**permalink**) 01-31-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannieD
1) Physicists already know that general relativity is an approximation because it does not model gravity at quantum levels. Newtons' equations work just fine when determining the orbits of satellites and asteroids, so the Newton's equations can't be wrong.
2)never said climate was a theory. I posted that climate is being observed, just as rocks falling from the sky are being observed.
3)You asked for a scientist that said the debate is over. I provided a name. What degree you have or do for a living is irrelevant.
4) So you agree that scientists can sometimes claim that the debate is over?

That's completely bogus. At "quantum levels", gravity is so weak compared to other forces present that nobody could devise an experiment to show how well it "works" in that domain, and nobody has ever said that it is incorrect.

Except at the singularity in the center of a black hole, which is where QM and relativity have a problem agreeing. Any undergrad in physics is aware of the problem. Where did you say you got your physics degree?

Now you're lapsing into the incoherent blather of the unschooled who read pages 356-357 in a physics book, and start pontificating.

You take the well known fact that there is a discrepancy between the predictions of GR and QM at a gravitational singularity, you "vote" for the QM solution, and then you think you've "disproved" GR. All quite hilarious.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
You're just blowing past what I said about Mercury, that it's orbit was known to be anomalous way back in the nineteenth century.

And you're ignoring my evidence that Newton's theory is used successfully to plot orbits of satellites. If Newton's theory was wrong, then it could not be used to successfully plot orbits of satellites. Therefore, relativity is a refinement of an older theory.

Oh, I get it - you think that a theory that is sometimes correct, is correct? By that reasoning, the theory that it's always four o'clock is correct, since it's true twice a day.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
You didn't name a scientist, but rather a historian. Then you tried to justify your claim by saying he had a degree in physics. I pointed out that I do as well, as do many who aren't thereby scientists.

Anyone with a Physics degree is scientist.

Yaaaa - sure.

Quote:

Nice try trying to change the subject. Bottom line is that scientists do achknowledge that the debate is over.

Only for the devout of the global warming religion.

Lawn Boy · #**175** (**permalink**) 02-01-2008, 06:33 PM

2+2=5...other planets are warming. I call it solar system warming.

Lawn Boy · #**176** (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 02:42 AM

Why do you keep bringing up the debate is over? Your still posting aren't you? You have too compare scientific facts about global warming to have a debate it. An idea is something like evolution when it was first proposed. most of the scientific community disagreed with it. A theory is something that most of the scientific community agrees of, like global warming or contemporary theories of evolution. A law is something that nobody challenges, its in the text book. I haven't heard anyone claim that the laws of gravity don't exist, even devoutly religious people who don't believe in evolution still agree they can't fly. Well maybe a few people do but they don't last long. I'm not proposing that these laws will never be changed, but simply that they're concepts have been around so long, nobody really cares to debate them anymore. The book is open on laws in theory, but for the moment it is closed. Global warming is still a theory it is not a law. Until everyone is as sure of man's contribution to global warming as they are of they're lack of ability to fly, the book is still open. And please don't send me a link to some group that discounts the laws of gravity that you probably started just so you can say my arguments are "irrelevant".

MannieD · #**177** (**permalink**) 02-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Now you're lapsing into the incoherent blather of the unschooled who read pages 356-357 in a physics book, and start pontificating.

You take the well known fact that there is a discrepancy between the predictions of GR and QM at a gravitational singularity, you "vote" for the QM solution, and then you think you've "disproved" GR. All quite hilarious.

Your reading comprehension needs improvement! Where did I post or imply that I voted for the QM solution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Oh, I get it - you think that a theory that is sometimes correct, is correct? By that reasoning, the theory that it's always four o'clock is correct, since it's true twice a day.

Your logic skills need improving. your analogy is not correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Only for the devout of the global warming religion.

You have no argument against the science so you resort to inane accusations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawn Boy

Why do you keep bringing up the debate is over? Your still posting aren't you?

As per my post 162: The scientific debate is over. Only the political debate against AGW by the rightwingnutjobs goes on.

Lawn Boy · #**178** (**permalink**) 02-03-2008, 06:26 PM

I'm glad you realized this is a political debate and not a scientific one. I like how you take apart peoples arguments and slander them just like a politician rather than comparing facts. In this way you detract from the actual argument which is I assume whether or not global warming is effected by man. You have no argument you just label people by their political persuasions.

MannieD · #**179** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawn Boy

I'm glad you realized this is a political debate and not a scientific one. I like how you take apart peoples arguments and slander them just like a politician rather than comparing facts. In this way you detract from the actual argument which is I assume whether or not global warming is effected by man. You have no argument you just label people by their political persuasions.

Have you even read any of my earlier posts?