Your Beliefs About Global Warming Are Irrelevent

Posted by Michael Peacock on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 06:59 PM. Read 3032 times. Tags:
{name} pic

This letter appeared in today’s Mobile Press-Register, and it raises a few questions about the science and politics behind the so-called global warming “debate”.  I’ll present it in it’s entirety, and will then address some specific issues.

Global warming claim a ‘hoodwink’

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by Kenneth D. Slade of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. Slade is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

Now, Let’s look at some of the specific claims in this letter, and I’ll demonstrate why they are either misleading or just plain false.

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Here the claim is that human activity cannot be proven to be the cause of Global Warming.  That is entirely true, since science is an inductive process of discovering truth via discrete observations and hypothesis testing.  In fact - science can never prove anything, although science is particularly good at disproving false claims. 

The author implies that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and through this, makes two assumptions: that Global Warming is real (which I personally agree with, though it’s generally poor form to contradict the thesis of your essay in its opening paragraph), and that there is just a single cause or Global Warming.  This is misleading, and paints an overly simplistic picture of the available data. 

It is more accurate to claim that, on average, surface temperatures are indeed rising around the world, and that human activity, specifically the emissions of so-called “green house gases” are playing an increasing role in this temperature increase.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by K. D. S. of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

Here there are several misleading claims.  First, the author claims there are, “left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington”, which is only 51% accurate since the November elections.  Second, the author claims that these politicians have a mantra, and that mantra is “blame warming on humankind.” Finally, the author claims that another letter writer, K.D.S. of Theodore, Alabama was correct is his assertion that those who intone this mantra have a desire to seek control over our lives and livelihoods.  Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the first claim is, at best, barely more than half-true, then my guess is that the other two claims that flow from it are somewhat less true.  In the absence of any corroborating evidence, we would be best served by assuming these claims are simply false, and ignore them altogether.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The misleading claim here us that global warming is actually part of a natural cycle.  The basis of this claim is the authors belief that politicians (presumably the left-leaning, ones chanting the mantra above) are trying to “hoodwink” us.  The claim is misleading because warming and cooling periods are indeed seen throughout history.  Recent evidence, however, indicates that, natural fluctuations were responsible for most temperature changes through the first half of the 20th century, but since the latter half of the 20th century, we have moved outside the bounds of normal, natural temperature fluctuations.

As to Thomas’ belief that, “global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time”, I would humbly submit that the original case for war in Iraq might be a hoodwink on par with any in history.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. S. is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Here’s the crux of Thomas L. M.’s argument - he disagrees with the position taken by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen, and former US Vice President Al Gore, and claims that they cite “climate experts” but do not reveal their identities, nor have them debate climate experts (sans quotations, signifying greater credibility) who see things differently.
This is not entirely true.  First, neither Teepen nor Gore are scientists, so they’re not actually required to outline their sources.  Their central claim, that the vast majority of environmental scientists have concluded that the data for Global Warming is compelling, and that human activity is, at least in part, responsible for this trend is well documented - even within various agencies of the US government.  For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several recent, informative articles on global warming (here).  In addition, the National Climate Data Center Has a Global Warming FAQ that refutes Thomas’ arguments, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Further, a recent article by Science Magazine reviewed 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change, and concluded that 75% agreed with the consensus view that human activity is responsible for most of the warming seen in the past 50 years.  The remaining 25% did not take any stance on the issue, and the article stated, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Now, this is also where the author takes a cheap shot at the “eco-left” by conflating and equating their goals and methods with those of Joseph McCarthy.  While the eco-left most likely has its own agenda, it’s not likely that it’s anything like that of the infamous Republican Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

Here’s where the author tugs at your heart strings.  Be afraid of the scary, tree hugging Democrats.  They want to take your job away and bury you under an avalanche of propaganda.

Ironically, the part where he says, “Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed”, is actually true.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

Again, the suspenseful theme music plays in the background as liberals start to rise from the political netherworld of near complete powerlessness, and Nancy Pelosi leads the way toward the utter destruction of Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

Thomas, I appreciate your fear.  Your government has been telling you for years to fear change, and to fear your Democratic neighbors.  You’ve been played, however, since Democratic Americans are at least equal to Republican Americans in all things.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

OK - here’s where Thomas goes for the big finish.  Not only are evil Democratic Americans out to “hoodwink” the good Republican Americans, but they’re actually trying to subvert the very core of our democracy.  Up until the last couple paragraph, this actually seemed like a reasonable, though naive and poorly executed, argument that global warming is a myth.  Instead, as we see Thomas’ scientific argument collapse, he relies more and more heavily on the Democratic bogeyman, claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow un-American and against workers.

More importantly, about one half of Thomas’ arguments are based on his belief, and his agreement with someone else’s beliefs.  If we were discussing a religious point, then this might add strength and credibility to his case.  Since, however, he’s arguing what is essentially a scientific point - about the existence of global warming and the role human activity plays in it - his beliefs are beside the point.  They’re irrelevant, and simply cloud the issue at hand.  Science, my friends, isn’t a democracy.  There are certainly debates among experts, often about subtle nuances of various theories.  In many cases, there isn’t any such thing as a “fair and balanced” view.  Beliefs aren’t particularly valuable.  Science is about evidence, and global warming is one of those cases in which the vast majority of the evidence is irrefutable - it exists, and we are playing an increasing role in it. 

Please, don’t simply take my word - I’m no climate expert. Instead, look at the evidence yourself. It’s all over the place for anyone who cares to read it.

Comments:

Page 5 of 5 pages « First  <  3 4 5

Webs United States Posted on 06/20/2007 at 06:01 PM

Webs pic

I have to get back to work.  I will not return here until I have left the office as it’s too much fun.

LOL no joke!  SEB’s slogan should be, “SEB hazardous to your job.” tongue wink

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 06/20/2007 at 06:45 PM

Bahamat pic

Lordklegg - For a moment i’d like to take us away from what anyone on either side says (because it’s an endless debate of validity), and look at the mechanism as to how CO2 might act as a greenhouse gas - because there needs to be a mechanism, otherwise it won’t happen. Don’t take anybody’s word for it, the science has to make sense to the reader.

Ok, so here goes, the theory on mechanism as it stands relys on the idea that all molecules absorb specific frequencies of light, and this is found to be so via spectroscopy, in which light of a specified frequency is shone through the sample and the amount that reaches the other end is measured.

So CO2, as one of those molecules, absorbs certain frequencies of light, some of which are in the IR range, this is regular radiated heat. The energy that is absorbed is thought to be stored as vibrations and rotations along bonds within the molecule.

What is absorbed will eventually be emitted, even if only to be later re-absorbed by another molecule. If a CO2 layer exists around earth, which has found to be the case through spectroscopic measurements, then it will absorb some of what light is of the correct frequency, what is not will pass through. Other gasses will do the same at their wavelengths. The emission will be in all directions, some into space, and some back to earth. We know emission occurs in all directions by placing a detector at various angles inside a spectrophotometer so that (because light travels in straight lines) we know that it’s only emitted light we’re measuring and not what wasn’t absorbed.

If this theory does not account for enough of the observed global warming, the critic has to find an additional theory that makes sense. There may be more than one thing going on, but this one certinly makes sense given what we know about light so would be expected to account for at least some of the observed warming. It’s up to the critics to find other additional theories, and they must make sense on the molecular scale.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Patness Canada Posted on 06/20/2007 at 08:04 PM

Patness pic

Inductively speaking, there’s good reason to think that CO2 levels are related to global warming, that human activity is related to CO2, and that human activity related to emission will continue on a steady upward trend.

But there is also good reason to doubt the boundaries to which this is true - we haven’t seen the extent that solar flares and volcanism, for instance, interfere with our data (mentioned elsewhere, I’m sure).

Is there reason to be worried? Yes. Is there reason to interfere? Yes. Are we clear on the details - mostly. I won’t ask any man worth his tools to accept a claim where he still feels there is ability to drive further useful investigation. Global warming? Yes. CO2? Probably. If the man wants to check out solar flares, volcanism and dog shit, let him. More knowledge for the planetary networks. I find the man’s skepticism, although unusual in this regard, not worth condemning.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

zilch Austria Posted on 06/21/2007 at 03:54 AM

zilch pic

What it boils down to for me (sweltering in my shorts in my relatively cool workshop at 8:45 AM) is this:

No one doubts that CO2 levels are rising due to our activity; and

No one doubts that higher levels of CO2 mean higher temperatures; and

No one doubts that very high levels of CO2 (say, twice the current levels) would be Very Bad; and

The disadvantages of reducing CO2 output are largely financial and eminently bearable;

Why the fuck are we doing nothing?

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 06/21/2007 at 07:21 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Why the fuck are we doing nothing?

This is only my perception of USian and Oz Kultcha and I could be wrong but it could have something to do with the corporation having all the legal benefits of an individual but none of the responsibilities let alone a conscience. The corporation is driven by bottom line performance by following only one rule: whatever it takes.

On the other hand, individuals need a change of mind and heart but this whole thing has become political.
At the base of this is the general population’s attitude to planet saving. It has inherently been left up to tree-hugging lefty-commie-pinko bastards to wake up the planet.
This has been very amusing for those on the right because the GOP is made of much tougher chest-beating master-of-the-universe type of stuff.
Al Gore was the butt of far too many silly Left-Right comments which often lost sight of the essence of his message.

I recall Consi making many Fat Albert jokes and accusing Al of various levels of hypocrisy and therefore TOTALLY discounting most of what Al talked of.
Of course Consi may choose to dig out examples which will show how wrong I am in everything I wrote just then but that would only finish up supporting what I’ve suggested.

And finally there’s Xianity with its Rapture-ready approach to life, or should that be after-life; they have much to answer for because many of them believe the planet was specifically created for them to rape and pillage for eternity.

As I said I could be wrong.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/21/2007 at 09:26 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Why the fuck are we doing nothing?

I love Ed Brayton’s take on this - suppose you don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming at all… isn’t it enough to want to stop trading with OPEC?  We could go alternative, transform our industrial society into full-sustainable, just to quit sending shiploads of money into oil-producing countries, and improve our balance of trade (which is way off right now) in the bargain.

zilch Austria Posted on 06/21/2007 at 11:24 AM

zilch pic

The levels of irony- and duplicity- in the current Republican pro-Saudi, anti-terrorist, pro-Christian, anti-science stance are unfathomable.  Too bad today’s voters can’t have a heart-to-heart talk with their great-grandchildren to come about what we’re doing to the world.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Lordklegg Canada Posted on 06/21/2007 at 11:46 AM

Lordklegg pic

Too busy to post last night.  I am on vacation now and I get to mow the lawn today (lucky me).
Lets assume the planet heats up, oceans rise, population is forced to move etc.  This will cause a population drop (no?) and the system will make it harder for humans to exist on the planet forcing us to adjust to the new normal.
Now I simply don’t see how this is actually a bad thing.  We are over-populated and need a good kick in the ass to remind us that we are not all powerfull.  When I think about global warming I DON’T ACTUALLY CARE.  I am far more interested in seeing what happpens if we don’t do anything.
So far the arguments for the “we must change now” side I really don’t find compelling.
Don’t get me totally wrong, I take transit, compost and if the city I lived in had a more comprehensive recycling program I would make use of it.  I look at some of the other countries/cultures in the world and I can’t help but feel that if they disappeared tomorrow, no loss. Other more flexible civilizations will occupy the territory(we do breed a lot).  I am an elitist (colonialist?) of sorts in that I am of the opinion that not all cultures are equal and weaker civilizations will be overrun by the strong.  If the planet changes we will adapt; it’s what were good at.

 Signature 

Sibling Battlebot of All Encompassing Justice

Patness Canada Posted on 06/21/2007 at 12:48 PM

Patness pic

When I think about global warming I DON’T ACTUALLY CARE.  I am far more interested in seeing what happpens if we don’t do anything.
So far the arguments for the “we must change now” side I really don’t find compelling.

Sustainability, long-term profit, preservation of human life, preservation of limited resources. If not those, then nothing.

I’d like to think we will learn something from this, but the lessons of which won’t last 50 years. They never do. The only way to “strengthen” humanity is to see it suffer perpetually, that we are constantly bargaining for our way of life, and never so spoiled to think we can bargain with nature.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

zilch Austria Posted on 06/21/2007 at 01:43 PM

zilch pic

We are over-populated and need a good kick in the ass to remind us that we are not all powerfull.

I’ll certainly agree with you there, Lordklegg.  The only mildly disconcerting thing from a knee-jerk liberal standpoint is that, to a first order of approximation, it will be the poor and defenseless who will get kicked in the ass, not the rich and powerful.  In fact, it’s already happening: look at sub-Saharan Africa.

I also somehow doubt that we’ll do ourselves in completely.  One of my favorite books, Always Coming Home by Ursula LeGuin, describes a post-collapse society, the Kesh, that as she says, “might have been going to have lived a long time from now” in what is now Northern California.  But for us precollapsarians, especially for those of us with kids, the picture of the future ain’t pretty.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/21/2007 at 03:59 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

We know what’s coming.  We know what’s causing it (carbon-interest propaganda aside).  We know what we need to do to head off the disaster.  And there are other good reasons for doing it anyway. 

It’s a pretty good test of our ability to live intelligently, but we’re failing.

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 06/21/2007 at 05:53 PM

Bahamat pic

Lordklegg - I can see your point of view, particularly whether or not it’s a bad thing - I wonder if it’d be kindest to put the planet out of it’s misery once and for all - to end world suffering through complete extermination of life. Global warming won’t do this unless it spirals out of control (where the evaporated water would overall perpetuate the warming despite anthropic CO2 production falling/stopping)

Perhaps creation of miniture black holes here on earth may be one way of speeding on fate if we’re rich and determined, and able to get our hands on the equipment. There won’t be anything to stop the black hole oscilating through the centre of the earth, gaining mass as it goes. Nukes just aren’t enough, though they may end world hunger to a large extent.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Patness Canada Posted on 06/22/2007 at 03:28 AM

Patness pic

may be, Bahamat - if it gets a mad scientist driven to create a large black hole. But on the atomic scale, a black hole isn’t anything - far too removed of any sort of matter to do harm. The rate at which it grows once it starts absorbing matter would be scary, were it formed near matter.

But, I jest not when I say these are merely a blip on the relative radar.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 06/22/2007 at 08:41 AM

Bahamat pic

patness- true, and realisticly speaking it has to be above a certain size to actually grow faster than it ‘evaporates’ (which is faster for smaller), it’s more or less beyond feasibilyity to make something of that size, the really tiny ones created through high speed particle colisions in labs and the upper atmosphere present no threat.

If you’re interested, the black hole ‘evaporates’ as a way of restoring entropy (which is lost when stuff falls in). The nothingness immediately outside a black hole splits into a particle and antiparticle (one with +ve energy, one with -ve), the antiparticle is projected into the blackhole (causing a little elimination) and the particle projected away, which restores entropy. I think all the matter here was made that way, since the big bang would have been too dense to expand and shouldv’e formed a black hole.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

timmeh United States Posted on 06/22/2007 at 09:08 AM

timmeh pic

Well what if black holes shoot streams of energy? Think of a black hole doing to matter what a magnifying glass does to light rays. There is a possible answer in “rotating black holes”.
It’s also likely black holes are the precursor of a “big bang”.
I kind of lean towards the string theory.
take a look at this site. http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh3a.html

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 06/22/2007 at 09:42 AM

Bahamat pic

timmeh: Well what if black holes shoot streams of energy?

They do, and this i believe is observed. By the same mechanism as I explained, with the particle being a photon and the antiparticle being an antiphoton. (This is why destructive interference confuses me, you have 2 photons of positive energy cancelling, so where does the energy go? It seems like it needs constructive interference elsewhere to dump the energy through some unknown mechanism.

Think of a black hole doing to matter what a magnifying glass does to light rays

Bending light, I suppose gravity does, and that’s why light can’t escape. But light has zero mass, so gravity shouldn’t affect it, and yet it does because it can’t escape black holes? Gravity is one of the less understood things which is why people have trouble linking it to conventional forces, I personally think it isn’t just one effect, that it has 2 aspects that both depend on mass. One is a conventional newtonian ‘potential’ like you get with magnetism and electrostatic, the other is the einsteinian bending of time, possibly along certain vectors more than others thus causing the object to appear to move towards mass, personally i ran out of 4d graph paper a long time age

There is a possible answer in “rotating black holes”.

That is beyond my scope of knowledge

It’s also likely black holes are the precursor of a “big bang”.

Agreed, and it could be like a slow stream of matter and energy as the primordial black hole evaporates. HOWEVER, perhaps the antimatter that was projected forwards in time had a negative gravity when time was going forward, and if it existed long enough it may have cancelled out gravity among the matter enough to expand, but this would need a helluva lot of cancellation because the initial density would’ve been far beyond what you need for a black hole. Elimination of matter by antimatter in itself isn’t enough to explain because there is more than enough matter combined to make a black hole

I kind of lean towards the string theory.

String theory attempts to link gravity to the more conventional forces through extra little dimenstions. Whilst I will say I simply don’t know enough about this, there is the question of what are the stings made of? Why are they as they are in terms of shape, size, and why they combine as they do? There will always be an elimentry particle that has no clear self-justification for being the way it is. Whilst string theory is quite possibly an untestable theory just to explain a possible link, it nethertheless needs to be investigated and added to our catalogue of possibilities

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

timmeh United States Posted on 06/22/2007 at 09:54 AM

timmeh pic

Meant to give this link:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh5a.html
I think I had one to many after work.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Patness Canada Posted on 06/22/2007 at 12:34 PM

Patness pic

Timmeh:

In concept, String Theory is great - but its a mathematical theory, not a physical theory. Stubborn as I am, I just won’t be convinced until the hard data starts crashing down my doors.

But it’s had my interest for a while smile. RBH, too; rotating black holes, I think, that was what got Stephen Hawking back on the blackboard.

Bahamat:

I think all the matter here was made that way, since the big bang would have been too dense to expand and shouldv’e formed a black hole.

Seems feasible - for decades we had trouble determining how we had so much matter and so little antimatter. I don’t know that Black Holes cover it all, though.
 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

zilch Austria Posted on 06/22/2007 at 12:53 PM

zilch pic

Not that I know anything about it, but from what I read there are increasing numbers of physicists who regard String Theory as an elegant mathematical construct- and nothing more, since there’s zilch experimental corroboration for it.  I’ll wait with Patness.

Not that the success or failure of String Theory will have much effect one way or the other on my life of irrepressible hedonism…

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 06/22/2007 at 05:41 PM

Bahamat pic

Patness: for decades we had trouble determining how we had so much matter and so little antimatter. I don’t know that Black Holes cover it all, though.

I wonder if most antimatter was projected backwards in time and most matter forward, making the big bang the middle point in time and giving a kind of symetry. But at least some antimatter was projected forward, because high energy antiquarks can convert into electrons (explaining electron’s -ve charge), and this is the only way I know of that might explain where electrons come from. I wonder why they were projected in the proportions that they were though.

Either way matter is known to behave slightly differently to antimatter when time goes forward, which is why the +ve quarks formed nuclei and antiquarks made electrons. Gluons that have no charge and bind quarks/antiquarks into protons/antiprotons, but I don’t know where they come from.

Another thought is about where the energy came from - that to balance all the positive energy contained in light you’d need either equal amounts of negative energy in anti-light or store it in matter. Again there must be asymetry with time for light to prefer a ‘positive’ quantity. It’s thought that since light and matter are interconvertible (as black holes and relitivity demonstrate) that matter itself is a storage of negative energy in a stable enough form (as the electron was to the antiquark), so perhaps light of correct energy might be able to eliminate matter.

One wonders what would happen if time was run backwards - maybe the rules about matter vs antimatter would flip and the planet become extremely unstable and self-detonate, perhaps gravity will invert and every matter particle repel, but maybe this all won’t happen if things seek instability instead (perhaps the atmosphere would pressurise itself in seeking instability, and I wonder what would happen on the atomic level, atoms may squish infinitely close to maximise hard-sphere repulsion and electrons might leave instantaneously and cluster together). You can have infinite instability providing there is no smallest unit of distance.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Page 5 of 5 pages « First  <  3 4 5

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main