Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Foo
Reload this Page >

How Fossil Fuels Heat Earth's Core

Foo Off-Topic chit chat with no general subject.

How Fossil Fuels Heat Earth's Core

Old 05-22-17, 06:41 PM
  #51  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
There's no convincing anyone who doesn't think for themselves.
There are often obvious gaps, mistakes or unfounded assertions that are part of the base of your ideas. No one is going to think about what you say any further if it is built on false premises or wild speculation. When they are pointed out you complain that no one is thinking about your ideas, on the contrary they have been given all the thought they deserve. No one is going to take on your ideas to refine or correct them - that is on you. Develop them with stronger supporting data and assertions and then you may get a better response.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 06:55 PM
  #52  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 35,968

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4342 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
One of the rules I try to live by is that if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

So..........................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 07:52 PM
  #53  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
There are often obvious gaps, mistakes or unfounded assertions that are part of the base of your ideas. No one is going to think about what you say any further if it is built on false premises or wild speculation. When they are pointed out you complain that no one is thinking about your ideas, on the contrary they have been given all the thought they deserve. No one is going to take on your ideas to refine or correct them - that is on you. Develop them with stronger supporting data and assertions and then you may get a better response.
... @late's thread on the world seed bank reminded me of the episode in the Russian history of science that was driven by Lysenko. It set the Russians back a couple of decades in scientific development, and was responsible for at least a couple of large famines.

Lysenko was an independent thinker, who was wrong about just about everything he put his mind to.


Yet he managed to worm his way into a dominant position in their science hierarchy, and purged a lot of people who disagreed with him. It's something worth thinking about.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 07:58 PM
  #54  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 08:02 PM
  #55  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
So quickly did he develop his prescriptions—from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes—that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience and observation required for science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
...like an agronomy version of Trump.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 08:05 PM
  #56  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,060
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1699 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
There are often obvious gaps, mistakes or unfounded assertions that are part of the base of your ideas. No one is going to think about what you say any further if it is built on false premises or wild speculation. When they are pointed out you complain that no one is thinking about your ideas, on the contrary they have been given all the thought they deserve. No one is going to take on your ideas to refine or correct them - that is on you. Develop them with stronger supporting data and assertions and then you may get a better response.
But it's much easier to blame the people you are trying to convince!

Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
When they are pointed out you complain that no one is thinking about your ideas, on the contrary they have been given all the thought they deserve. .
Given more than they deserve.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 05-22-17, 08:08 PM
  #57  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I'm sorry, I just don't subscribe to this wizard-of-oz discourse of "what actual experts know about it." Anyone can claim expertise or cite expertise without explaining the claims and/or how/why they're assumed to be correct. "Daddy said X and Daddy's right because Daddy has a PhD and works in academia" is not good science.


There's no convincing anyone who doesn't think for themselves. There are some independent thinkers, I assume, who actually critically analyze science they read about and only accept conclusions tentatively, maybe even contemplating alternative explanations and working out why one explanation is better than another for various reasons. Most people probably just read something and accept it as true because it comes from a reputable source; no critical thinking, nothing except blind faith in authority because it's bona fide according to a system of credentials they believe in for whatever reason.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 01:40 AM
  #58  
late
Senior Member
 
late's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,548
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8902 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post

1) Science is nothing more than speculation

2) except there is rigor in critically questioning whether the speculation can be tested and revising aspects that don't stand up to testing.

3) 'Scientists' who reject open public discussion are not scientists in the true sense.

4) They are just professionalized gatekeepers of information.

5) Scientists are people who have the capacity to think critically and analyze why a given idea could be right or wrong, figure out what kind of tests would support or disprove it, etc.
1) Big surprise, you don't know science.

2) This contradicts your first sentence.

3) A discipline is a community of scientists, they determine what their science is, and does. There is no requirement that they pay attention to people that don't know what they are talking about.

4) Not according to your second sentence.

5) That's part of it.

You are pushing some sort of anti-science agenda, prob as a result of Big Oil propaganda. Not that the source matters much, crap is crap regardless of the source.
late is online now  
Old 05-23-17, 07:48 AM
  #59  
mconlonx 
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,551
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6967 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Right, but the heat/energy used to compress biomass into fossil fuels by means of pyrolysis can come from the biomass itself. It can basically consolidate its own energy into denser forms. This is part of why I suspect that neutrino-absorption can cause even denser consolidation of energy in the form of atomic mass-growth, but that is highly speculative - though not completely since neutrinos are known to react with other particles sometimes in neutrino reactors, where the particles are relatively cold and not-dense compared with magma deeper underground.
Chemically, how is this accomplished? In the atmosphere, pyrolysis in the form of charcoal manufacture occurs because some biomass is burning -- combining with oxygen. In the earth's crust, pressure and more specifically heat generate at the core and transmitted through the mantle to the crust, break biomass down into fossil fuel components in an endothermic reaction. Exactly how would biomass contribute to heating the earth's core -- by what chemical or physical process does biomass undergo some kind of exothermic reaction which would allow it to contribute to heating of the earth's core?

Another post cited the fact that the carboniferous era is relatively recent and as a result, has not had geologic time to even progress through the crust and mantle to even reach the core of the earth. This is supported by known observation and geologic history. What evidence do you have that this is a false assertion, that your claim is more correct?

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Science is tentative, not exhaustive. If a source lists some causes of core heat and it doesn't include sunken biomass, that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that biomass/fossil-fuels sink and contribute to core heat has been tested and excluded as a possibility.
It could also mean that it was considered and discarded out of hand because it absolutely makes no sense at all. Classic theory on why the earth's core is heated and remains hot, instead of cooling was previously referenced -- is there any reason to think that the three contributing factors don't add up to the entire reason? That there is a need to further speculate regarding what may be heating the earth's core? Is there some missing segment -- a fourth component of core heating -- that is yet to be accounted for, and for which you are here providing some kind of answer?

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
As I said, if they all passed through the planet, neutrino detectors wouldn't detect any. I believe there have been tests comparing neutrino rates through the planet vs. from the sky during the day and the day-sky rate is higher, suggesting that more neutrinos are getting absorbed as they pass through the planet, which is logical.
Do you have any reference for neutrino absorption as a cause for denser consolidation of energy? Or any information on what kind of rate of neutrino absorption would be necessary to effect such a reaction? Is there any data indicating that neutrino absorption is even happening? Can you describe the mechanism of atomic mass growth in relation to neutrino absorption? Because your assertion here flies in the face of what is known of neutrinos -- it is so highly speculative as to be effectively wrong.

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I prefer to discuss reasons why or why not things might work a certain way or some other way. Preferring one idea to another is irrelevant. All that's relevant is ascertaining whether what is true can be logically established vis-a-vis some contrasting idea. If it can't, what basis is there for assuming it to be true? The credentials of the researchers?
Feel free to discuss why things might work a certain way, but as part of the scientific process, such discussions are surely tested and questioned. If an idea has merit, it is certainly worth considering as an alternate model, but such an idea/model needs to be supported to the same extent and with the same rigor as competing ideas and models. As you say here, if it can't be examined in the same detail as competing claims, what basis is there for assuming it to be true? The assertion of some random person specifically posting outside scientific forums?
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 08:47 AM
  #60  
Bandrada
Bandolero
 
Bandrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 402

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2924 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by late View Post
1) Big surprise, you don't know science.

2) This contradicts your first sentence.

3) A discipline is a community of scientists, they determine what their science is, and does. There is no requirement that they pay attention to people that don't know what they are talking about.

4) Not according to your second sentence.

5) That's part of it.

You are pushing some sort of anti-science agenda, prob as a result of Big Oil propaganda. Not that the source matters much, crap is crap regardless of the source.
lol!
Bandrada is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 09:22 AM
  #61  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
.
...Lysenko's Refutation of Mendelian Genetics

3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 09:25 AM
  #62  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,077
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7994 Post(s)
Liked 197 Times in 129 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
Actually if you think about it it's the damn bikers. Those floor pumps people use to air their tires, all that force and pressure and vibration is sent right down to the earth's core.
@tandempower why aren't you thinking critically about my idea?
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 09:38 AM
  #63  
late
Senior Member
 
late's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,548
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8902 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
.




That's my meme, but with the proper obeisance...
late is online now  
Old 05-23-17, 09:58 AM
  #64  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,269

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14562 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by late View Post
That's my meme, but with the proper obeisance...
...I have to say that it was your seed bank thread that finally triggered what had been lurking in the back of my mind, nameless and unclarified, ever since I first started reading @tandempower on science. So credit where credit is due.

The arguments for achieving scientific breakthrough via thinking in accordance with proper moral doctrine, the ideas that scientists are illegitimate in their stance of speaking from authority, and the general resentment of science and scientists as currently structured is all straight out of Lysenko. It's a little eerie, in fact.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 10:12 AM
  #65  
andr0id
Senior Member
 
andr0id's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1420 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by icedmocha View Post
I don't have any thoughts because on a scale of 1 to 10 my knowledge on this is maybe a 2.
The drawing posting by tandempower is completely wrong.

This is what it's really like.

andr0id is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 10:29 AM
  #66  
andr0id
Senior Member
 
andr0id's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1420 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All the oil ever taken out of the planet is about 38 cubic miles.

Last year, about 1 cubic mile of oil was removed.

The Oil Drum | Getting a Grasp on Oil Production Volumes
andr0id is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 10:41 AM
  #67  
trsidn 
Jeff Vader
 
trsidn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Putting the 'fun' in dysfunctional
Posts: 381

Bikes: Cannondale CAAD8, Trek SU200

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
lol
__________________
We are all a litter of piglets in the barn fire of life - Piney McKnuckle
trsidn is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 11:43 AM
  #68  
late
Senior Member
 
late's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,548
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8902 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post

...I have to say that it was your seed bank thread that finally triggered what had been lurking in the back of my mind, nameless and unclarified, ever since I first started reading @tandempower on science. So credit where credit is due.

The arguments for achieving scientific breakthrough via thinking in accordance with proper moral doctrine, the ideas that scientists are illegitimate in their stance of speaking from authority, and the general resentment of science and scientists as currently structured is all straight out of Lysenko. It's a little eerie, in fact.
Credit where credit is due, I wish I'd noticed that, but I didn't.
late is online now  
Old 05-23-17, 12:00 PM
  #69  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
It also said what happens to it.
That's the part I question. How can you assume that it all gets vented to the surface? I.e. how can you know how much comes back up and how much continues going down? I have seen a documentary about the formation of the Himalayas, for example, where the entire mountain range was formed as energy built up under the subducting plate. I think it depends how strong the plate is that's getting pushed up whether and how much energy can build up under it. If the plate is strong enough, the energy can be forced down all the way to the core, I think. Then, the areas where it flows back up and causes plate spreading must be areas where the plate strength/weight isn't enough to force the hot magma away further laterally.

It's implying that most of the carbon energy "comes up". The authors are probably aware of what is understood about where the core energy (that's the thing you don't know enough about). It seems it's a relatively small amount of energy.
I do understand the current theories that core heat is thought to be remnant from the earliest formation of the planet, and that it contains many neutron-rich isotopes and radioactive elements that are decaying and re-absorbing neutrons. I also understand that radioactivity was adopted as the go-to explanation for core-heat being maintained for so much longer than it was originally estimated to last.

So, it is logical that since the scientists who revised their theory of core-cooling to include radioactive decay as a heat source would simply assume that whatever additional energy was needed to keep the core as hot as it is for as long as it has been, that radioactivity would account for all that.

Still, it is possible to question the mechanics of radioactivity within the Earth. E.g. neutrino research is currently developing rapidly and so we will know a lot more about neutrino-chemistry in the coming years/decades. Since neutrinos are light particles, like electrons or photons, that mostly pass through cold matter, but interact with nucleons, it is possible that they penetrate through the crust and deliver energy into the core. Since the core is hot and subject to immense pressures, it is also logical that the additional energy absorbed could be consolidated into building heavier isotopes and/or radioactive elements. In the same way biomass gets pyrolyzed into denser fossil-fuels, neutrino energy could be absorbed into lighter atoms to catalyze a sort of nuclear pyrolysis process that forms denser nuclei.


Ok, what's your point?

You keep assuming that just because you can imagine some weird hypothesis that there's a "high" probability that it's right and the fairly-established science is likely to be wrong.
No, I don't think of things in terms of 'weird' or 'high probabilities' of them being right. All that is just applying normative aesthetics to scientific discourse. All I'm doing is taking information and synthesizing it into logical possibilities. If something turns out to be excludable about a certain possibility, then there's no point thinking about it further. The exclusion has to be conclusive, though. I'm not going to discard possibilities because they seem subjectively/aesthetically 'weird' or 'improbable' from a standpoint of discourse-familiarity.

2- Have a strong, compelling reason it's likely (ideally, you'd do some real experiments).

3- Show why the fairly-established science is wrong. Keep in mind that many people have spent a lot of time establishing​ the science.
'Compelling' is subjective and/or economic. Sometimes I can think of experiments that would be compelling if they weren't so difficult and expensive, such as a long-range neutrino detector that spans astronomical distances. Since that's not practical, I try to think of ways to combine other more feasible observations and interpret the data in terms of neutrino-observations, e.g. there's a lot of chlorine on Mars and neutrino detectors use chlorine, so could there be some way to extrapolate neutrino chemistry by studying Martian chlorine (just an example). I'm not going to avoid thinking in some direction or other because it's not compelling to invest in actual research, because that would censor away avenues of thought that could prove otherwise fruitful.

As for showing why established-science is wrong and worrying about people's careers, that is just an obstacle to free critical thinking. If you can use information and ideas from established science to improve your process of critical thinking, it is good to do so. If you censor you mind by reference to established discourses, you might miss some logical avenues of thought or analysis you might otherwise stumble upon. If you think of something idiotic, it's not a big deal because someone will point it out to you and help you progress by doing so.

3- If you present an idea (about some sciency thing) in a public forum, people are going to match what you say to the established science.
That's fine. I want to know what is (thought to be) known about the topics I am thinking about. I also research them with what I can find. Posting a thread to discuss a topic is part of doing research, because it invites people to contribute insights that they've managed to stumble upon that I haven't.

4- That is, people are going to weigh what you say (somebody with poor understanding) against what tbe experts say.
That's fine for them, but it takes the discussion in a negative direction when they make it their main objective to denigrate me and/or attempt to get me to humble myself before established science. If people are mainly interested in whipping others into submission to established authorities, they're not interested in critical thinking or science in the true sense of open critical dialogue, so they should just avoid discussions.

5- There is no reason that people must weigh your statements equally with what experts say.
There's no reason that people should 'weigh' statements at all. All you should do is think critically and clearly about what you learn from any source and incorporate it into your logical understanding of the thing you're studying. You shouldn't be taking anything at face value based on the professional standing of the source. You should understand something before you just accept it as fact.

6- You can't keep dismissing experts for silly reasons.
You shouldn't accept anything unless you fully understand it and are convinced it is true by your understanding of it, and not just by acceptance of the fact it comes from experts.
tandempower is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 12:01 PM
  #70  
trsidn 
Jeff Vader
 
trsidn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Putting the 'fun' in dysfunctional
Posts: 381

Bikes: Cannondale CAAD8, Trek SU200

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
T
You shouldn't accept anything unless you fully understand it and are convinced it is true by your understanding of it, and not just by acceptance of the fact it comes from experts.
horse****
__________________
We are all a litter of piglets in the barn fire of life - Piney McKnuckle
trsidn is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 12:02 PM
  #71  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
There are often obvious gaps, mistakes or unfounded assertions that are part of the base of your ideas. No one is going to think about what you say any further if it is built on false premises or wild speculation. When they are pointed out you complain that no one is thinking about your ideas, on the contrary they have been given all the thought they deserve. No one is going to take on your ideas to refine or correct them - that is on you. Develop them with stronger supporting data and assertions and then you may get a better response.
Everything you're saying here is in regard to the discourse itself, from the outside. You're not saying anything about the actual topic of the thread.
tandempower is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 12:12 PM
  #72  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,077
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7994 Post(s)
Liked 197 Times in 129 Posts
You should think critically about what @noisebeam is telling you.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 12:34 PM
  #73  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by late View Post
1) 3) A discipline is a community of scientists, they determine what their science is, and does. There is no requirement that they pay attention to people that don't know what they are talking about.
A 'discipline' is a practice. E.g. Karate, yoga, and metallurgy are all disciplines, meaning you learn the skills by practicing them. The people who practice the disciplines are not the discipline. They may be practitioners of the discipline, masters of the discipline, or students of the discipline, but they are not the discipline. What's more, science isn't a brand-name or even a specific art. Science is a general set of principles for disciplined thinking, research, etc. regarding nature. That's all. Academic sciences are institutionalized bodies of knowledge and people who do science, but they are not science; and they don't have a monopoly on it, although they do have a monopoly over the institutions.

You are pushing some sort of anti-science agenda, prob as a result of Big Oil propaganda. Not that the source matters much, crap is crap regardless of the source.
I am certain anti-institutional and anti-dogma and anti-authoritarian, because I am a believer in liberty. But I am not against anything any professional scientist or institution has published because of the source. I just take information and evaluate it critically with as much detachment for the source as I can muster. Sure, I am prone to respecting and believing something more when the source is listed as a reputable one, but ultimately I'm trying to remain rigorously critical enough not to base my knowledge on reputational bias toward the source(s) of information.

Idk what you're talking about with 'Big Oil propaganda." I am no fan of oil or any other fossil fuel. I avoid motorized transportation and unnecessary energy use. I'm doing all I can to live sustainably.
tandempower is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 12:50 PM
  #74  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,060
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1699 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
That's the part I question. How can you assume that it all gets vented to the surface? I.e. how can you know how much comes back up and how much continues going down?
I'm assuming nothing. I'm relating what the video said (which you overlooked).

You assume it's a significant amount of energy.
You assume (I guess) it's mostly being driven into the core.
You assume (I guess) most of it doesn't get vented to the surface.

Why do you (not even somebody with much knowledge) think all those experts are wrong?

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I have seen a documentary about the formation of the Himalayas, for example, where the entire mountain range was formed as energy built up under the subducting plate.
I don't think it's a subduction edge. It's one plate being crashed into the other.

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post

Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
This must be the mechanism whereby stored solar energy gets converted into stored gravitational potential energy, i.e. in the form of mountains.
You can have plate tectonics (mountains, etc) without plants (or solar energy).
How? You're being assumptive.
No. It's based on what is known about how the process works.

Jupiter's Moon Europa May Have Plate Tectonics Just Like Earth
Ok, what's your point?
There aren't any friggen plants on Europa (probably).

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Still, it is possible to question the mechanics of radioactivity within the Earth.
Sure, it's possible to question anything. That doesn't mean every question is a good one.

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
That's fine for them, but it takes the discussion in a negative direction when they make it their main objective to denigrate me and/or attempt to get me to humble myself before established science. If people are mainly interested in whipping others into submission to established authorities, they're not interested in critical thinking or science in the true sense of open critical dialogue, so they should just avoid discussions.
No. You "denigrate" experts and established science for no good reason. You want people to play by your rules and your rules are unusual.

You don't even know the established science well enough. But, for some inexplicable reason, you want people to assume your ideas are as carefully thought out as actual experts in the fields.

You piss all over the credibility of experts but want people to think you are more credible. That's bizarre.

Last edited by njkayaker; 05-23-17 at 01:17 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 05-23-17, 01:06 PM
  #75  
RJM
I'm doing it wrong.
 
RJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,854

Bikes: Trek Remedy 9.8, Rivendell Appaloosa, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Trek Fuel Ex, Riv Atlantis, Niner Sir9, Trek Crockett

Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6145 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
A 'discipline' is a practice. E.g. Karate, yoga, and metallurgy are all disciplines, meaning you learn the skills by practicing them. The people who practice the disciplines are not the discipline. They may be practitioners of the discipline, masters of the discipline, or students of the discipline, but they are not the discipline. What's more, science isn't a brand-name or even a specific art. Science is a general set of principles for disciplined thinking, research, etc. regarding nature. That's all. Academic sciences are institutionalized bodies of knowledge and people who do science, but they are not science; and they don't have a monopoly on it, although they do have a monopoly over the institutions.

You have this thing where you play around with words and go on and on about your own personal definition of a certain, already figured out, idea...this is one of those times.


A scientific discipline is a particular branch of scientific knowledge and yes, the people who practice the discipline are part of that discipline. Someone, like you, who has no desire to practice science is not part of the discipline.
RJM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.