Water burns!
 

Water burns!
 

Tom Ring wrote:

...
PLONK!

I love getting rid of idiots.

tom
K0TAR

Could be dangerous in your particular case, hope it doesn't lead to any
self-destructive behavior ... however, I can understand, my enjoyment is
the sound of idiots leaving--don't let the door hit 'ya on the bum.

JS

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:8SXci.1489$vi5.246
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken
pretty much wrecks literally everything else ...

The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught
was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in
matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was
quickly added.

What on earth was it that he was taught? I certainly wasn't around
then, but any universe that didn't conserve energy would quickly pull all
the available energy from (probably) the first extraction of energy, and
then would soon enter it's lowest possible energy state. Or else possibly
become a continuous kaboom if unlimited energy was available.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:cXXci.178$Rw1.115
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
Your point being what? That science is screwed up? My point
regarding that is that science constantly refines and improves.

Doesn't the need for a constant redefinition and
improvement process prove that science is screwed up?

No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is
incorrect, and likes to self correct.

Respectfully, I might note that you seem to be trying to have it
both ways in all this. You want certainty, you profess skepticism. But
you insist that because science has been wrong, that it must always be
wrong, or at least we must assume that it is probably wrong, so don't
believe it.some science somewhere must be correct at some point.
Otherwise we might as well say things are like they are because God wants
them that way. We are then sure, and all is well

Skepticism when taken to extremes, bears an unsettling resemblance to
faith.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope
science will prevail in the near future.

Here's probably all you need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak
temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the
peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of
340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of
410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming
cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is
relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000
years ago indicating that we are already in the
next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-)

Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect
different
areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember
listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming"
during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently.

Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain
places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the
Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine
weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic
Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired
power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island,
we don't have to worry about the rest of the world.


Well, let us hope that it doesn't happen, and you folks across the
pond enjoy decent weather for years to come. But I'm sure it isn't lost
on you all just how far north you are! If the Gulf stream relocates or
dissapates, the results could be pretty devastating!

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:QKXci.1488$vi5.780
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
One might make a pretty good case that since the
scientific method is inherent to science and to being a scientist that
those who abandon it are no longer scientists.

OTOH, one might make a pretty good case that those
who worship at the alter of the scientific method
have simply traded one religion for another and
are no longer scientists.

That is a common argument of Creationists, Cecil. Many even clims
that Evolutionism is a religion. Seems weird to me. I wouldn't pay a whole
lot of attention to it beyond my considered opinion that it is coorect,
but the fundies keep yappin' about it! 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

On 16 Jun, 20:27, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Mike Kaliski" wrote :







"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. 136...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope
science will prevail in the near future.

Here's probably all you need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak
temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the
peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of
340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of
410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming
cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is
relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000
years ago indicating that we are already in the
next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-)

Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect
different
areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember
listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming"
during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently.

Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain
places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the
Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine
weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic
Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired
power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island,
we don't have to worry about the rest of the world.

Well, let us hope that it doesn't happen, and you folks across the
pond enjoy decent weather for years to come. But I'm sure it isn't lost
on you all just how far north you are! If the Gulf stream relocates or
dissapates, the results could be pretty devastating!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the middle of the 19 century the River Thames which is a tidal
river
froze over in London. The ice was so thick that a fair was held on the
ice.
If I remember correctly water height varies about 13 feet due to tide
change
so you can imagine how thick the ice was to hold the tides back.

Water burns!
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:8SXci.1489$vi5.246
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken
pretty much wrecks literally everything else ...

The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught
was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in
matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was
quickly added.

What on earth was it that he was taught? I certainly wasn't around
then, but any universe that didn't conserve energy would quickly pull all
the available energy from (probably) the first extraction of energy, and
then would soon enter it's lowest possible energy state. Or else possibly
become a continuous kaboom if unlimited energy was available.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even after
the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors..

Water burns!
 

On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim.
Your narrow definitions from the field of physics
are not even accepted within the RF engineering
community.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Hi Cecil -

I am not in the business of defining physical phenomena. I do
occasionally refer to the definitions published in physics books
though. From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly
consistent with those used in engineering. In any instance where you
find them to differ, I would like to suggest that a re-examination of
your understanding of the phenomena might help resolve those
differences.

73, Jim AC6XG

Water burns!
 

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
In the middle of the 19 century the River Thames which is a tidal
river
froze over in London. The ice was so thick that a fair was held on the
ice.
If I remember correctly water height varies about 13 feet due to tide
change
so you can imagine how thick the ice was to hold the tides back.


The ice was 5 feet thick and the river flow was severely obstructed by
numerous bridge butresses. The River Thames was so polluted that it was more
like liquid mud (actually sewage) than water. The river is now so clean that
salmon have been caught swimming in it and the flow is fast enough to
prevent a recurrance of the freezing process that allowed the frost fairs to
take place. Tidal flow is only rarely interrupted by the Thames Barrier to
prevent exceptionally high tidal surges from breaching the river defences in
Central London.

Mike G0ULI