Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Ok let me get this straight (Score 1) 24

by Crashmarik (#48283037) Attached to: Physicists Identify Possible New Particle Behind Dark Matter

Not only are they inventing a new particle, but a new force as well ? Which is needed to explain how the new particles behave ?

Really this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to create an explanation that doesn't make predictions and is as removed from testability as possible.

No, that would be sterile neutrinos.

There's another candidate for dark matter but if I understand things correctly it's ruled out because of the needed distribution.

Comment: Ok let me get this straight (Score 1) 24

by Crashmarik (#48282891) Attached to: Physicists Identify Possible New Particle Behind Dark Matter

Not only are they inventing a new particle, but a new force as well ? Which is needed to explain how the new particles behave ?

Really this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to create an explanation that doesn't make predictions and is as removed from testability as possible.

Comment: Re:Correlation does not imply causation (Score 1) 123

by Crashmarik (#48281481) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

I think you may be missing the difference between the what and the how. The what is observational data, any new scientific theory either has to be consistent with existing observational data or show that the observations are in error. As an example any new theory of gravitation has to accurately predict the observed orbits of the planets or it will be rejected. It can however have a radically different basis for what makes them have those orbits.

Comment: Re:Correlation does not imply causation (Score 1) 123

by Crashmarik (#48280219) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

Sorry the way I read Asimov's essay was you had people talking past each other. Just to put this in perspective Newtonian mechanics is a radically different view of the world than relativistic mechanics yet is still overwhelmingly used to do almost all calculations in engineering. I suspect the same will hold true whenever a viable formulation of quantum gravity is made.

Maybe a better way to examine this would be to look at the implications of saying "I am glad we live in a time when we finally understand how the world works", if you take that statement as true you rule out radical changes in our understanding of the world. Maybe there isn't anything big left to discover and we know it all, I wouldn't bet on that though.
 

Comment: I don't know what they are doing to burn coal now (Score 5, Informative) 232

by Crashmarik (#48275921) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...

Denmark pays a whopping 41 cents per kilowatt hour.

OUCH !!!!!!!

3.5 times the avg cost in the U.S.

It really doesn't take much for other energy sources to beat that. Going out on a limb here I suspect renewables could be cheaper by just not being subject to whatever it is they do that makes their current energy sources ridiculously expensive.

Comment: A Little Lesson for the dogmatic (Score 1) 123

by Crashmarik (#48275867) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

I read the summary and realized I knew nothing about the economics of electrical production in Denmark. So I looked

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...

Denmark pays an avg and whopping 41 cents per kilowatt hour.

OUCH !!!!!!!

Say what you will about their plans but at those prices they are not overly concerned about delivering a cost effective product.

Comment: Re:Correlation does not imply causation (Score 1) 123

by Crashmarik (#48275815) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

I met the good doctor back in 1974 at a bookstore on 71st street in Miami Beach*. He really was an incredible wit and raconteur, there is no way I am going to go up against his ability to formulate a plausible explanation. I mean really how can you dispute someone who could come up with the ancient Greeks prophesying Einstein ? http://geobeck.tripod.com/fron...

But he should have known better in the essay you linked just the same. A well educated person in the 1700s could have made the same claim that it was wonderful to live in a time when at last we understood the universe In the . He could then point to the work of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and proclaim they had set the heavens on a mechanical basis, and Von Leeuwenhoek had revealed the microscopic basis of life and Franklin had deciphered and tamed electricity. In both cases "The relativity of wrong wouldn't apply to things you were actually relatively spot on about, but rather about the things you think you understand but don't. Asimov really shouldn't have made the claim given his expertise. He was a biochemist, so when he says the world is well understood he would need to exclude vast sections of his own field. When he wrote that essay protein folding was still nearly impossible to model for anything but very simple cases. We had not yet decoded the human genome (we are still at the threshold of understanding), and when you spoke of climate change you were likely to be as worried about the next glaciation as warming.

*Rather sad it was a good bookstore now it's a fast food joint.

Comment: Re:Correlation does not imply causation (Score 3, Interesting) 123

by Crashmarik (#48275081) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

Hows that luminous aether working out for you ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Little dated ? Maybe supersymetry and string theory ?
http://scienceblogs.com/starts...

Magnetic Monopoles ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Science is about being aware of what you don't understand and just how vast it is. Pseudoscience is about certainty. Maybe you can get a corrective phrenology session to clear that up ?

Comment: Re:The luddite drag down (Score 1) 465

by Crashmarik (#48269245) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

It's about setting things up so the entire concept of expertise is questioned - it's where a layman can yell that you are wrong in something to do with your profession just because it makes them feel better - and then an observer is supposed to gives more credence to whoever makes the most noise instead of whoever knows what they are doing. That's what you are pushing instead of just having to prove worth to your peers or someone with a remote clue about what you do.
Personally I think that's a very stupid way to go through life with zero worth in any way unless you have no ability in anything but want to feel "special".

If you want that kind of faith in what you have to say, I suggest joining the clergy. It's obvious you have no place in science or engineering with the possible exceptions of sales or P.R.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...