Maxwell was a classic physicist, he still thought in the terms of aether. So he did not care much that his equations were not invariant under the classic Gallilean transformations, because the aether provides a natural privileged reference frame.

Oh, and Maxwell equations are known very well.

I kinda doubt that Einstein knew about Olinto. But relativistic transformations are called Lorentzian for a reason, and Heaviside discovered the relativistic length compression. However, both of them thought that their results were artifacts of calculations and can be made to disappear with a careful selection of a reference frame and/or aether properties.

Then why do we Einstein made the mental leap that nobody before him was able to do - he actually said that the relativistic effects are _real_ and that if you consider them all together then they form a consistent theory. A weird theory where clocks run at different speeds and length and mass are not constant, which is why lots of physicists dismissed it at first.

We can't really trust the report, given that there are so many variables in play here. Like an unknown heat camera, questionable setup (why no watt-meter to measure the accurate power use??) and interference from the inventor. If I was planning to hoax everybody then I'd bribe one of the investigators to look the other way while I 'calibrate' a biased camera.

So no, I don't think that this merits further investigation unless Rossi provides the clear instructions to prepare the 'fuel' to a third party.

Uhm, are you saying that Randi fails because other cranks continue to peddle their crap to credulous public? Isn't that exactly what Randi claims happened in the "Carlos Hoax"?

Monitoring output is surprisingly complicated. They've used heat cameras to watch the temperature of the 'reactor' and from that they calculated the supposed heat output.

Except that it's not so straightforward to do. Emissivity of materials can affect measurements by quite a bit - just look at a thorium lantern mantles or newer rare-earth mantles, they are very bright at fairly low temperatures. I don't see that anybody checked the "reactor" coating materials for rare earth dopants.

Then there's a question of the control experiment - Rossi had set it up himself, to avoid overheating the coils (?). Lots of potential for mischief right there.

You mean that all those English yippees should take their Mayflower and GTFO back to England? Yeah, I've heard that sentiment from my fellow Americans. The _real_ Native Americans, I mean.

Just admit that you know jack shit about the subject. In particular, any radiative forcing calculations have to deal with the water vapor which acts to amplify the heating. So it's not a calculation for a piece of paper and 20 minutes anymore.

Or maybe flipping between two extremes? How about that for a "null hypothesis"? Do you know that once there were trees growing in the Antarctic?

Oh, and since we're talking hypothetical shit without any real connection to the actual science, you MUST also mention the possibility of the Venus effect - runaway greenhouse warming. Why do you think it's impossible? After all, the Sun is growing hotter and this time _just_ might be nonlinearly different! If we think about the nonlinear systems then we MUST fail on the side of caution and stop ALL the CO2 emissions NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!!!!!111111



And reality check - we actually do know quite a bit about actual climate processes and we can model them with a significant precision. The models show that the global warming won't be catastrophic for the environment itself, but it'll cause wild upheavals in the human economy.

And? If he can't read the absorption spectrum of CO2 then it's not my fault that he's growing senile.

I very much doubt that you've ever seen a spectrograph or have any actual knowledge of physics. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is easily confirmed by simple experiments, in particular.

And what's your crap about the "null hypothesis" and "basic physics" has to do with it?

The Earth is warming. Rising CO2 concentration provides explanation why it happens. Both are facts.

The details of the warming, on the other hand, are extremely complicated.

No, I haven't. We can't predict the movement of every molecule in a car colliding with a wall, yet we still somehow manage to model the results with good enough quality.

Dude, you're incoherent. Climate models start from one veeeeeeery simple fact: more heat is going in then going out. That's been measured by the satellite albedo measurements and can be directly quantified.

Then we have a direct causative agent - the rising amount of CO2. It's directly measured without any integration or even differentiation needed! So what do you say to that?

No need to invoke Lyapunov or Kolmogorov. Do you think you're the only one here who knows that ODEs are?

NERVA has poor specific impulse at the sea level. It can work as an engine for launch, but not any better than the classic liquid engines. It's theoretically possible to improve its efficiency by using better reactor design and specific impulses up to 600 seconds are probably possible.

Also think about it - you are flying a freaking high-powered nuclear reactor on a rocket. What if something goes wrong? Well, say 'hello' to your own mini-Chernobyl conveniently delivered into the upper atmosphere!

And once you're in space... You can use VASIMIR or good old ion engines for slow-but-steady high-specific-impulse propulsion. There's no need for high-thrust acceleration.

So, everyone but Reagan? Right?

Well, my current mileage is 27600m on my Volt and the average economy is 90 mpg. I'd say that my Volt works just fine for me.

I'd switch to a purely electric car, but 60-90 miles is simply not enough. I'd say that 150 miles is the minimum amount for me and at 250 miles I'd be able to switch without any worries.

Most of my daily commute distance fits into 40 miles of my Volt's AER. Yet about once a week I need to do 70-80 miles a day, or I have to skip a charge. In this case I'd be worried if I had a purely electrical non-Tesla car.