Nuclear vs Renewable

[AUFC90]

So you admit that it is all theoretical then? So why can't you accept that your idea of energy is equally as theoretical? Because the reality is, you have no idea how the first source of energy came to be. It is purely theory.

Who cares ? At the point of a big bang, or in a black hole, the rules of physics probably don't exist anyway.

On this planet you cannot just create energy and if you are arguing that you can then you'll have to prove it. I can't disprove the laws of thermodynamics and I'm certain you can't either.

[Cream Cheese]

4 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

 

Who cares ? At the point of a big bang, or in a black hole, the rules of physics probably don't exist anyway.

On this planet you cannot just create energy and if you are arguing that you can then you'll have to prove it. I can't disprove the laws of thermodynamics and I'm certain you can't either.

 

Or perhaps our entire understanding of physics is wrong. According to the law of physics, blackholes are impossible, but there they are.

[AUFC90]

Or perhaps our entire understanding of physics is wrong. According to the law of physics, blackholes are impossible, but there they are.

Well take Newtons quote, stand on their shoulders and find out. I'll stick with the giants for now.

[Cream Cheese]

8 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

 

Well take Newtons quote, stand on their shoulders and find out. I'll stick with the giants for now.

 

Giants as opposed to who? Somebody develops a theory and because loads of people decide they're going to believe that theory, the somehow makes it true?

I suppose you think god is real as well.

[DublinMagyar]

Or perhaps our entire understanding of physics is wrong. According to the law of physics, blackholes are impossible, but there they are.

You can't just make stuff up like that and be taken seriously.

[AUFC90]

Giants as opposed to who? Somebody develops a theory and because loads of people decide they're going to believe that theory, the somehow makes it true?

I suppose you think god is real as well.

If you believe that on earth you can just magically create energy without some sort of external force present then be my guest, that's more akin to believing in God than anything else. And my original point was that Hellboy is talking shite regarding generators, which he is, no really sure what you're banging on about to be honest.

[BallochSonsFan]

You can't create energy. You can only convert energy from one form to another. I'm sure thats already been discussed on the thread, but if there are posters claiming that you can create energy from nothing then it goes way over my tolerance levels for complete and utter mental.

As for the actual debate - nuclear v renewable - we have a problem with renewable in that it's inefficient and doesn't provide a constant supply of generation at anything like the levels we need. Tidal, hydro, wind and potentially even solar in some circumstances all have a part to play in meeting our energy needs but can't in themselves meet 100% of our energy requirements.

Any solution needs to be a balance between renewable and some form of carbon, bio-mass or nuclear generation. 

[dorlomin]

5 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Or perhaps our entire understanding of physics is wrong. According to the law of physics, blackholes are impossible, but there they are.

Black holes were predicted by the laws of physics before they were detected. We were looking for them when we found them. Perhaps you can tell me which law of physics they violated. When Chandrasekhar predicted them in 1930, Eddington and company's objections were more out of principle that from any law of physics. 

5 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Counting isn't measuring. It is merely words. If I ask you to measure out 5% of infinity, what do you return with?

Counting 5 centimetres to measure 5 centimetres is not measuring? And we are not talking about percentages of infinity but discrete units of an infinite series. 

 

Quote

So you admit that it is all theoretical then? So why can't you accept that your idea of energy is equally as theoretical? Because the reality is, you have no idea how the first source of energy came to be. It is purely theory.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory

 

Quote

Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess"—more literally speaking, "hypothesis" or "conjecture") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory—that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Gravity (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."

 

The laws of conservation of energy has been established many many times over, including by reestablishing them and massively broadening them by Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2 in closely related) that produced the energy\mass equivalence. It is also what scientists call "fruitful" in that it has lead to many important discoveries, when people have noticed violations of the law it has been resolved by new discoveries such as neutrinos. 

Its also worth telling people what a scientific theory is. The idea of science is to reduce the phenomena of the physical universe around us to a series of mathematical models that we can use to predict the behaviour of the universe. So for example Newtons laws of motion can be used to predict the flight of an artillery shell. When people observe things happening in the universe people come up with models of what is happening to try to describe and predict it. Ptolomy came up with the idea that planets moved round the Earth in circles but moved in smaller circles during their orbit of the Earth, this sort of described the movement of the planets. It worked if you wanted to know where  a planet would be in the sky. But it had flaws, Copernicus came up with the idea that the Earth and planet went round the Sun but did so in ellipses and this was what explained the motion of the planets. The two different models made similar predictions about where you would see a planet but had very different consequences, they made different predictions about where the planets and Sun were in relation to each other. Rapidly Copernicus's system was shown to make better predictions about things like planets transiting the Sun and phases on the planets. This is how science works differing theories make predictions and the ones that make the best predictions are the ones we use. 

Quote

Giants as opposed to who? Somebody develops a theory and because loads of people decide they're going to believe that theory, the somehow makes it true?

I suppose you think god is real as well.

But look at the world and the nations that were early to accept science and its method. Europe went from being a bit of a backward back water to becoming the most powerful civilisation on Earth by the early modern era as its sciences produced new methods of navigation, better gunpowder, better ballastics and metallurgy. More over within Europe those once rustic backswaters of England and Holland rapidly over took the great powers of Spain and Italy as the former were much more accepting of science than the latter in the 16th-19th centuries. 

 

Accepting the scientific method is a road to prosperity and when you opponents dont accept it, power. 

 

A really good example of a modern nation turning its back on science ahead of ideology was Nazi Germany. World leader in terms of Nobel Prizes for Physics and Chemistry before 1933. But after that many  of the best and brightest fled, the Nazis tried to surpress the new physics of relativity and quantum mechanics as Jew Science  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

They failed to fully suppress it but drove enough of the best and brightest away that the US beat them to the nuclear bomb by quite some distance, in many other fields Jewish and liberal intellectual made important contributions to our utter pulverising of their ideology. We accepted science without questioning its origins they did not. Supporting science has huge and clear benefits to society. 

 

[Todders]

13 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Or perhaps our entire understanding of physics is wrong. According to the law of physics, blackholes are impossible, but there they are.

I'm sure he's talking about how firmly established and accepted the science is.  Science you find in peer reviews journals are is generally still subject to bebate within the scientific community.

 

What you find in textbooks is pretty much universally accepted (apart from by "free energy" crackpots).

Edited August 4, 2016 by Todders

[DublinMagyar]

[DublinMagyar]

Nope. You are converting chemical energy into heat and kinetic energy doing that.

Basic thermodynamics. We call them Laws for a reason.

Nope, you're actually converting mass not chemical energy.

[Cream Cheese]

12 hours ago, Todders said:

I'm sure he's talking about how firmly established and accepted the science is.  Science you find in peer reviews journals are is generally still subject to bebate within the scientific community.

 

What you find in textbooks is pretty much universally accepted (apart from by "free energy" crackpots).

It was generally accepted that the earth was flat at some point. I'm not going to accept something as absolute fact, just because it's written in text books. I leave all possibilities open to debate. Everything is impossible, until it happens.

[dorlomin]

4 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

It was generally accepted that the earth was flat at some point

It has not been widely accepted among the learned in the West that the Earth was flat since 330BC. Thats about 1900 years before the invention of the scientific method. 

 

Quote

. I'm not going to accept something as absolute fact, just because it's written in text books. I leave all possibilities open to debate. Everything is impossible, until it happens.

Cartesian doubt run amok. 

In science nothing is ever proven, but there are very clear differing levels of evidence and acceptance. While multitudes of wild possibilities are "possible" you have to have a clear hypothesis that provides a mathematical description of an observable phenomena that is open to reproducible falsification tests that has better predictive power than competing hypothesis and meets the test of Occam's Razor before its considered in the running to be an accepted part of science. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

Quote

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts.

 

[hellbhoy]

On 03/08/2016 at 12:34, dorlomin said:

The set of whole numbers is infinite, you have just proposed you cannot count to two because it is part of an infinite set. This is something primary school children are taught, getting that wrong suggests we have little to learn from you on the nature of deep cosmological problems until you have put a bit more effort it to read and learn. 

 

It is my understanding of current theories that the universe is assumed to be infinite and eternal. But it existed as a singularity. All of our visible universe was constrained into a "space" the size of a proton, but this was a tiny fraction of the singularity that itself was infinite in size. Some kind of quantum fluctuation happened and this kicked off inflation, not just in the visible universe but a huge area and perhaps all of the singularity. As inflation started gravity came into being as a repulsive force that pushed the singularity out into a much larger space, when there was enough space the cooling universe allowed the 3 unified forces to break apart into the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces. Eventually after about 300 000 years the expanding universe cooled enough that the light was no longer being absorbed by ions and could flow freely for the first time, this is the "surface of first scattering" or the moment we see light for the first time, this was increadibly hot when it happend by the universe has expanded so much and cooled so much we now see this as a 3K background radiation. 

I am talking in analogies here rather than the language of real science, maths. So analogies are imperfect my understanding lacking and the subject a complex one to reduce down to a quick lunch break comment. 

Why dont you go and read up on it, and come back to us with what you have learnt. "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants": find some giant shoulders to stand on

Fcuk off you,

None of anything you have posted there can be stated as probable because it is basically all theoretical physics, and being infinite whilst being the size of a proton really does make me laugh ffs. Nothing can be infinite if it is being measured by a comparison.

Everything you have posted is text book stuff that is mainstream accepted academic science created by a bunch of boffins who THINK that is how the universe and everything in it is and was created by applied mathematics.

For us as a species to think we understand the complexities of the universe and reduce it down to mathematical equations based on what?, we know next to nothing and it makes me laugh when nut jobs tell us how old the universe is when we can't even comprehend it's size, it's expansion rate, all of the elements known and unknown, every variable available, what creates and destroys elements and what creates energy masses and how they react in the vacuum of space, etc etc etc.

According to you we know how old the universe is and how it came to be the boffins can't even come up with a safe sustainable renewable energy source for the planet speaks volumes in it's own right.

[Cream Cheese]

2 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

It has not been widely accepted among the learned in the West that the Earth was flat since 330BC. Thats about 1900 years before the invention of the scientific method. 

What difference does that make? Methods are methods. They had methods back then, just as we have methods now. Science suffers the same problem as every other method. It makes things up in order to fill in the gaps. Because having to admit that we're most likely wrong on our understanding of so many things is just too difficult to accept. So things that don't fit into our understanding of our rules get theorized. The theory then turns into accepted fact, without being proved.

[dorlomin]

Just now, hellbhoy said:

None of anything you have posted there can be stated as probable because it is basically all theoretical physics,

"None of anything " did they teach you that when you were doing your PhD at MIT?

For a start we can see the light from the "surface of last* scattering". (*I erroneously called this first earlier, my bad folks)

 

 

Thats it, the moment when the universe cooled enough to allow light to move. 

 

We can see the lithium\hydrogen ratio in the universe and that fits very closely with other theoretical calculations of nucleogenesis in the early universe. 

Quote

and being infinite whilst being the size of a proton really does make me laugh ffs. Nothing can be infinite if it is being measured by a comparison.

The visible universe we currently see was the size of a proton

There is perhaps an infinity large universe beyond that we cannot see and when you condense that down it would also still be infinite. 

 

Quote

Everything you have posted is text book stuff that is mainstream accepted academic science created by a bunch of boffins who THINK that is how the universe and everything in it is and was created by applied mathematics.

So why do we have a picture of the surface of last scattering?

 

Newtonian motion was created by applied mathematics. It is good enough to put a man on the Moon and keep aircraft in the sky. Do you suggest we use astrology or ouja boards?

[hellbhoy]

2 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said:

What difference does that make? Methods are methods. They had methods back then, just as we have methods now. Science suffers the same problem as every other method. It makes things up in order to fill in the gaps. Because having to admit that we're most likely wrong on our understanding of so many things is just too difficult to accept. So things that don't fit into our understanding of our rules get theorized. The theory then turns into accepted fact, without being proved.

Yup, and there's the problem nowadays. Just because the theory says it can happen or it can be done doesn't mean it is possible or a reality until actually proven this is the case.

I see black holes were even mentioned above?

[Cream Cheese]

1 minute ago, hellbhoy said:

Yup, and there's the problem nowadays. Just because the theory says it can happen or it can be done doesn't mean it is possible or a reality until actually proven this is the case.

I see black holes were even mentioned above?

Black holes are the opposite. According to our perfect theory, they can't possibly exist. Yet they very much exist throughout the universe.

[dorlomin]

9 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said:

What difference does that make? Methods are methods.

Which other method is as successful as the scientific method?

Quote

They had methods back then, just as we have methods now. Science suffers the same problem as every other method. It makes things up in order to fill in the gaps.

Citation please.

Quote

Because having to admit that we're most likely wrong on our understanding of so many things is just too difficult to accept. So things that don't fit into our understanding of our rules get theorized. The theory then turns into accepted fact, without being proved.

We were talking about the conservation of energy. A law that has had 200 years of phenomenal success in explaining the observable universe and critical to our engineering. Please cite a repeatable experiment that contradicts this law. I shall be curt here. You are an uneducated buffoon and will produce zero evidence to back up your incoherent rambling. 

[DublinMagyar]

And the earth is 6000yrs old?