Solar Energy

oh i see, we're arguing semantics again. Technically the DEF is directly responsible for the absorbtion of the radiation.

Well, how does the DEF to absorb UV radiation? What causes this?

Well, how does the DEF to absorb UV radiation? What causes this?

I am unable to answer the question "How does the DEF to absorb UV radiation?" because it makes no sense.

Uh, I'm asking how does the DEF absorb UV, which means I'm looking for an answer that explains its mechanism to do this.

the DEF contains the atmolayer which holds the Ozone. The Ozone is its mechanism.

Which is why I said this:

The DEF with the atmosphere together absorb UV radiation, because ozone layer is within them. However, I was saying DEF itself, without the atmosphere, doesn't absorb UV.

They together absorb UV, but DEF itself doesn't.

It is directly responsible however. Which is what I said.

Quote from: L0gic on November 28, 2007, 01:33:44 PM

TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...   

Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.

True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.

Quote

They fired radio waves at the sun, it took 16 minutes to get back, that's 8 each way.

No. That is not true. Stop making stuff up.

Radio waves cannot bounce off the sun because the sun emits all frequencies of radiation. Any such signal would be filtered out and indistinguishable from the background noise.

Show us a study of radio waves being bounced off the sun.

We can't, because the radio waves just get sucked into your hole, before being blasted out along with all the other light of day.
The eight-minute travel time is based on RE science, observation and evidence. Obviously it must be wrong.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 08:30:20 PM

Quote from: L0gic on November 28, 2007, 01:33:44 PM

TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...   

Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.

True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.

So did Einstein's iirc.

Quote from: L0gic on November 29, 2007, 04:46:08 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 08:30:20 PM

Quote from: L0gic on November 28, 2007, 01:33:44 PM

TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...   

Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.

True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.

So did Einstein's iirc.

iirc?
My point is his work wasn't blind random speculation. (No offense but it's more credible)
The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.

What am I talking about?! FES is the only place I have seen so much creativity. 
This is the perfect place for it.

lol... I wondered if you were thinking straight there!

The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.

Did Einstein conduct controlled experiments on the universe to confirm his theory of relativity over the theory of the graviton? Nope.

Did Stephen Hawking conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with the theory of the metric expansion of space? Nope.

Did Newton conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of gravity as a force? Nope.

Therefore, since no controlled experiments were ever conducted, we can safely say that theories are nothing more than fantasy and conjecture - based on observations - which only seemingly explains events. Any contradictory model could be created. After all, there is no Grand Unified Theory in physics. Whether the currently accepted dogma is true is entirely unknown. Any existing theory is only waiting for a better one to take its place.

Einstein didn't discover relativity. It's nothing more a model he made up to explain events. Other theories, such as Quantum Mechanics, explains events just as well without the necessity of bending space.

Quote

The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.

Did Einstein conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of relativity? Nope.

Did Stephen Hawking conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with the theory of the metric expansion of space? Nope.

Did Copernicus conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos before coming up with his theory of the earth rotating around the sun? Nope.

Did Newton conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of gravity as a force? Nope.

Therefore, since no controlled experiments were ever conducted, we can safely say that theories are nothing more than fantasy and conjecture which only seemingly explains events. Any contradictory model could be created. After all, there is no Grand Unified Theory in physics. Whether the currently accepted dogma is true is entirely unknown.

It depends if you want to separate "control experiments" from "measured observations".

At the end of the day, you start out by suggesting "X causes Y" (as a hypothesis).   Then you see if the hypothosis:  (a) agrees with current observations and (b) predicts future observations.  This can either be through experiments or observations. Lastly you have to persuade others that the hypothesis holds true.   That's all science is.

If we *always* had to conduct "controlled experiments" before hand, we would not be as advanced as we are now.

As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes.  In the case hawking, don't know/understand, in the case of the rest, of course!

As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes.  In the case hawking, don't know/understand,

The results of each of those tests and observations in that link are also what is precisely predicted by the theory of the Graviton.

If Relativity is so 'tested and confirmed', why is there no Grand Unified Theory?

in the case of the rest, of course!

What controlled experiments did Newton conduct to confirm his theory of Gravity as a force?

They are waiting for a quantum gravity theory that will unite GR and quantum Mechanics.

A result of this would be a Grand Unified Theory.

Quote

As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes.  In the case hawking, don't know/understand,

1. The results of those tests and observations are also what is predicted by the theory of the Graviton.

2. If Relativity is so tested and confirmed, why is there no Grand Unified Theory?

Quote

in the case of the rest, of course!

3. What controlled experiments did Newton conduct to confirm his theory of Gravity as a force?

1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.


-

1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

What are you talking about? Newton never came up with the theory of the Graviton. That's a completely separate theory made by Quantum Mechanics. The Graviton theory is every bit as predictive as Einstein's Relativity. The Graviton also bends light. There is no current experiment which can tell us the mechanism for gravitation, whether it be a bending of space-time or a subatomic particle.

2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

But you just told me that Relativity was the true, tested and confirmed, theory. If Relaitivity is so true, why isn't Relativity the Grand Unified Theory?

3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.

If Newton based his theory of Gravity as a force on pure observation, as you say, don't you think it's safe to say that his 'theory' was nothing more than pure speculation based on fantasy? If the entire scientific world could, between the 1600's and 1900's, base their belief system on a fantasy; why couldn't it happen now?

You can't really "prove" the shape of the Earth unless you were to acually go into space and see for yourself (Tom Bishop excluding, as obviously Round Earths look like Flat Earths).

The truth is that RE makes a whole lot more sense as:
1) We don't have any crazy refraction.
2) Besides the fact that it supports life, the Earth is not special.
3) We don't have to alter the laws of perspective.
4) We don't have to include a conspiracy.
5) No Shadow Objects.
6) No confusing sun/moon relationships.
7) There is no order, order being an organization to the Universe, which is not natural.  Things develop into chaos naturally.
8)No explanation needed for Great Circle Routes/travel times.
9) No "celestial gears" needed.
etc

PROBLEMS WITH RE:
1) We don't yet have an explanation for how gravity works.

Basically just gravity.

TOM BISHOP, don't give that stupid list, because 90% of the stuff on there deals with RE and FE, such as WIMPS, MACHOS, dark matter, etc.

If graviton turns out not to exist, all attempts for an unifed theory will be destroyed.

You can't really "prove" the shape of the Earth unless you were to acually go into space and see for yourself (Tom Bishop excluding, as obviously Round Earths look like Flat Earths).

The truth is that RE makes a whole lot more sense as:
1) We don't have any crazy refraction.
2) Besides the fact that it supports life, the Earth is not special.
3) We don't have to alter the laws of perspective.
4) We don't have to include a conspiracy.
5) No Shadow Objects.
6) No confusing sun/moon relationships.
7) There is no order, order being an organization to the Universe, which is not natural.  Things develop into chaos naturally.
8)No explanation needed for Great Circle Routes/travel times.
9) No "celestial gears" needed.
etc

PROBLEMS WITH RE:
1) We don't yet have an explanation for how gravity works.

Basically just gravity.

TOM BISHOP, don't give that stupid list, because 90% of the stuff on there deals with RE and FE, such as WIMPS, MACHOS, dark matter, etc.

Worthy goal, still reaks of bias however.

Quote

1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

What are you talking about? Newton never came up with the theory of the Graviton. That's a completely separate theory made by Quantum Mechanics. The Graviton theory is every bit as predictive as Einstein's Relativity. The Graviton also bends light. There is no current experiment which can tell us the mechanism for gravitation, whether it be a bending of space-time or a subatomic particle.

Quote

2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

But you just told me that Relativity was the true, tested and confirmed, theory. If Relaitivity is so true, why isn't Relativity the Grand Unified Theory?

Quote

3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.

If Newton based his theory of Gravity as a force on pure observation, as you say, don't you think it's safe to say that his 'theory' was nothing more than pure speculation based on fantasy? If the entire scientific world could, between the 1600's and 1900's, base their belief system on a fantasy; why couldn't it happen now?

I never mentioned newton and "gravitation".  You made the point that every test in the link would apply to newton (?!?)

I countered by saying the Newton model does predict the bending of starlight, but by a different amount.  Look for "Soldner" in the link I gave you.   Also look at Dark Stars for Newton's theoretical light bending properties.   Newton cannot explain Mercury's orbit, which it another easy test for GR (in the link).

On GR being true.  I don't quite understand.  GR has a defined scope within which it is shown and accepted to be a solid model.  Beyond this is breaks down.   That's it.

-Any hypothesis could be viewed as "fantasy" until is has been tested under scrutiny.  I don't understand the point you are making.  A hypothesis may become a theory, once it has been tested and accepted by others.

I never mentioned newton and "gravitation".  You made the point that every test in the link would apply to newton (?!?)

Nope. Learn to read. I said that every test in that link would apply to the Graviton theory of gravity. I never said that the tests applied to the Newtonian theory of gravity as a force.

I countered by saying the Newton model does predict the bending of starlight, but by a different amount.  Look for "Soldner" in the link I gave you.   Also look at Dark Stars for Newton's theoretical light bending properties.   Newton cannot explain Mercury's orbit, which it another easy test for GR (in the link).

Newton didn't invent the Graviton. Newton's theory of the gravity as a force, and Quantum Mechanic's theory of gravity as a sub atomic particle are mutually exclusive. Read a book.

Geez-aloo Tom,
We can test relativity. 

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/tests-of-relativity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html

Geez-aloo Tom,
We can test relativity. 

But how many of those tests provide predictions that Quantum Mechanics does not also predict?

If General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics makes the same predictions, but have a different mechanism, how can we tell which of the two mechanisms is true?

 / \
  |
  |
  |
Read RE literature.

/ \
  |
  |
  |
Read RE literature.

I have. And, unfortunately, there is no Grand Unified Theory.

GR and QM are directly contradictory, provide equal predictions for the same phenomena, and are utterly and entirely unproven. Why should we believe in something which makes no controlled experiments, and continues to consist of unproven conjecture?

How can we prove that space is bending rather than a particle interaction at a sub-atomic level?  If a test cannot tell us that, well, then it's not really a test at all.

I have. And, unfortunately, there is no Grand Unified Theory.

True , but your alternative has "selective " gravitational attraction.

Nope. Learn to read. I said that every test in that link would apply to the Graviton theory of gravity.

OK, I need glasses, foureyes  Graviton<->graviton.  I think I know there is a difference between Newton and QM thanks.

However...

If General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics makes the same predictions, but have a different mechanism, how can we tell which of the two mechanisms is true?

You cannot prove that anything in the real world is absolutely true.  You can only make a judgment based on the evidence and its reliability.

For example.  I cannot prove that when light passes near to the sun, an invisible alien with a mirror pops up and deflects it slightly.  However, I can make a judgment that, base on what we know, it is highly unlikely.

If you are looking for science for the absolute truth then you need Religion instead.