Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
This sounds like an ideological objection based on policy and not the technology.
Climate Change? Of course. Which way?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
im actually in favour of nuclear power, and the treaties that put all the waste in american control (who else can be trusted with it? nobody!) but the wholesale use of nuclear power by every country on the planet as their primary power source... we cant easily store the nuclear waste we currently have, the massive increase in waste from this policy would be a serious problem.
but it's not europe's problem, so they dont get a vote.it's OUR problem, and if we dont come up with a solution then europe will have to go back to tallow candles and manual butter churns.
meanwhile european smug surety that nuclear power is the only choice is based on their not having to deal with the downside, so they need to be a little less sure of their rightness and a LOT less dickish with their claims of superiority because they get more power from nuclear sources than the backwards ole' hillbillies in the us.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
As I understand it nuclear waste is valuable as only a fraction of the energy has been harvested and it is relatively less harmful to the public than fossil fuel waste as it can be safely contained and stored. I am not aware of any stored nuclear waste that has caused public health problems.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Seems to be the MO of this poster - https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/556339-how-exactly-does-space-time-3.html#post8081283
Clearly honesty in dialogue and discussion is not his goal but only on 'winning' his points and hiding his errors. CWE and shinfaggy would be proud.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Where the hell has CWE been lately? Dude make a sock account or what..?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Sorely misunderstood by RIU who was clearly not ready for such brilliance, he decided to go back to his home planet...
Doer
Well-Known Member
I agree, Mr M and Mr H. Trolling in the science section, when it is so easy to be shown ones' ignorance, is like rolling up seeds 'n stems and passing that around as "good stuff."
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I have no ill will toward people that are ignorant about science, I am always willing to help someone understand the importance of the methodology. However, this dipshit has gained special ire from me by his attempt to try to hide his ignorance by trying to call me the fool instead.
What he tried to do is seriously fucked up. Don't call me stupid because I try to help you understand what others are trying to explain to you. There are some seriously self-deluded people that post here.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
"A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html
you gonna stop bitching now?
much of the problems of the present waste is that it comes from first generation nuclear planst that were designed to give weapons grade fuel for bombs and as such they're planning to bury fuel thats only had a few percent of the energy removed and has waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands f years
generation 4 + 5 plants reduce that problem down to a few hundred years
then we have this
"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
lets not mention the heavy metals and such that get released
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the longterm storaghe problem is quite distinct if you live near rancho seco (a reactor facility that ran for only a few years but it's containment ponds are chock to the brim with other facility's waste all the same) or nevada where the proposed long term storage site is still an issue that caused bar fights in some quarters.
there is no long term storage facility yet, only temporary facilities, and that we have no accidents yet is only a testament to the technical skill of our waste containment program.
until a long term solution is acheived any plans to radically increase nuclear power on the level proposed would be foolhardy at best.
see, no metaphors, just facts. sounds like a politician muttering meaningless platitudes.
what i mean by all that above is if europe wants to use 300% more nuclear power, then they are gonna have to let us store it in THEIR backyard under our supervision until we got a place to store it long term. with the stuff near their communities nuclear power would rapidly become as troublesome there as it is here.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
im not the one arguing that "less than X" equals zero for dead certain and for ever and ever cross your heart... despite the assertion that even the best systems cant prove photons have zero mass, only set an upper limit that that mass could be.
where i come from "less than x" is a NON ZERO NUMBER. but you still gotta squirt piss all over any who wonder. how dare they doubt.
so the MO of YOURSELF is smug certainty when even the best minds claim "we cant be certain"
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
coal ash is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel rods.
that explains why blacksmiths and foundry workers die from radiation poisoning so often.
you know what else is radioactive? ceramic pottery. ceramic tiles in your bathroom, cement, igneous rocks, bismuth, your computer monitor (even lcd's) compact flourescent light bulbs, the smoke detector in your house, etc etc etc.
the radiation from those sources is minute, sheilded, and of a different sort than the ionizing radiation that turns your bones into poison and melts the flesh from your body.
meanwhile, on your silly coal non-story, you omitted the truth and painted the story with bold primary colours. nice stalking horse.
heres the editors note from that story
*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/0
: In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.so the story's claim that coal ash is "more radioactive than nuclear waste" actually should read: "coal plants emit more radiation from their smokestacks during operation than nuclear plants do from their coincidentally similarly shaped cooling towers", despite the fact that cooling towers and nuclear plants dont emit SHIT, and their waste is carefully packaged, extracted and secured like it was radioactive (which it IS) while fly ash is NOT radioactive, it however can contain traces of shit that can be radioactive. just like well water, cinnamon sticks, and dental fillings.
nice try. too bad i actually read shit.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
the thing about fly ash is that it is a concentrate of impurities in coal if you removed just the granite from your granite worktop you'd get a concentrate of the impurities in granitecoal ash is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel rods.
that explains why blacksmiths and foundry workers die from radiation poisoning so often.
you know what else is radioactive? ceramic pottery. ceramic tiles in your bathroom, cement, igneous rocks, bismuth, your computer monitor (even lcd's) compact flourescent light bulbs, the smoke detector in your house, etc etc etc.
the radiation from those sources is minute, sheilded, and of a different sort than the ionizing radiation that turns your bones into poison and melts the flesh from your body.
meanwhile, on your silly coal non-story, you omitted the truth and painted the story with bold primary colours. nice stalking horse.
heres the editors note from that story
*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/0
so the story's claim that coal ash is "more radioactive than nuclear waste" actually should read: "coal plants emit more radiation from their smokestacks during operation than nuclear plants do from their coincidentally similarly shaped cooling towers", despite the fact that cooling towers and nuclear plants dont emit SHIT, and their waste is carefully packaged, extracted and secured like it was radioactive (which it IS) while fly ash is NOT radioactive, it however can contain traces of shit that can be radioactive. just like well water, cinnamon sticks, and dental fillings.
nice try. too bad i actually read shit.
your trying to say that it being released into the atmosphere is somehow better than having it all contained? what are magic radiation fairies gonna clean it up?
again lets not talk about the heavy metals released into the atmosphere, or the deaths from respiratory diseases related to coal plants
you say you read but completely blow over this part "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for electricitycarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the entire point of nuclear power plants is that they do NOT emit any contaminants (if they dont get pulverized by an earthquake and a tidal wave... sorry japan) into the local environment, instead all their toxic byproducts are secured and stored in a way that prevents their distribution into the environment at large. the tiny amount of radiation that does escape is easily overshadowed (even by exponential numbers) by the minute traces of radiation found in canned tuna fish, ceramic tableware or cell phone transmissions.
one hundred times .0000000001 parts per million is .00000001 parts per million, and both are insignificant. even plutonium cant hurt you in those concentrations.
the article creates a false impression (a red herring) of massive radiation and toxic billowing plumes of uranium soaked smoke drifting over schoolyards and nursing homes. that is UNTRUE.
the point remains however that nuclear power is GOOD, but we have a spent nuclear fuel problem already. massive increases in nuclear power without first solving the disposal (storage) problem is a dangerously shortsighted move.
it only takes one fuckup with spent nuclear fuel or used up control rods to turn nuclear power from a safe and viable alternative to a dangerous and unstable menace with a new chernobyl lurking around every corner.
the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US, and is thus not their problem. here in america (where the spent fuel and old control rod issue is NOT somebody else's problem) nuclear power is NOT our friend. most people see nuclear power as a sinister threat, just one mad scientist away from unleashing godzilla upon the world, and this time it's new york or los angeles in his path on his way back to monster island, not tokyo. (again, sorry japan)
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I'm not the one ignoring how science actually works and that there are theories which explain what we think the model of how the universe works, and experimental limitations. Germs cause disease is still a theory even though in all practicality there is no distinction between what we think we know and what we are able to demonstrate. All scientific calculations are going to have error bars somewhere. You also seem to be arguing that the indirect methods of proof are somehow insufficient. Discussing practical limits to real world testing while ignoring the other arguments about what we SHOULD see but we DON'T. Such things as deviation from Coulomb's Law and frequency dependent lightspeed is demonstrating more of your psuedoscientific tilt. You are trying to argue that the process is broken somehow and then you always toss in your favorite strawman about certainty when it's clear you know nothing about levels of certainty. Science is able to demonstrate particulars through experiment but also working technology. You see how rare it has been in the last 200 years that ideas are actually overturned radically, since science has evolved into layers upon layers of intertwined and interconnected theories that at a reductionist level, there are certain physical laws that appear can be known and understood using the language of mathematics. It is clear that both QM and Einstein are both wrong in some fundamental ways even though they are individually very successful theories. We know and understand there will be changes but they will likely be more refinements, not overturning of fundamentals like lightspeed and relativity. Relativity still has Newton's equations at their core.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Coupla stray observations.
1) Frequency-dependent speed of light is an established phenomenon in dense media. It underlies the spectral dispersion phenomenon by prisms.
2) Newtonian mechanics can be taken to be the slow-speed limit of Einsteinian mechanics. Einstein didn't kill Newton's theory but provided it with a larger stage. Jmo. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
again, you have taken my words and painted them with a braod brush normally reserved for somebody selling perpetual motion machines.
light bends in gravity feilds
gravity acts in a "field" because it's influence wanes with distance.
the bending of light within gravity's influence is not proof of space being warped.
the bending of light within gravity's influence is evidence of light being subject to gravity's pull
to my mind this implies mass is found in a photon. (or something so similar that it cannot be easily distinguished)
every source available declares that photons have zero mass, but then hedge their bets with an upper limit on the possible mass if it is present.
given that light IS deflected off course by gravity, the presumption that light's course alteration within gravity being due to space itself getting deformed seems irrational.
objects with mass get drawn off course by gravity too, and this effect does NOT require any warping of space to explain.
the assertion that space is warped is, in my opinion, a metaphor used to explain a phenomenon that would otherwise be inexplicable.
that is the very essence of a mythology.
if light is actually completely devoid of mass, then several other current theories work just fine, but space must be deformed by gravity.
if light has mass (or something similar that would be quite difficult to imagine much less differentiate) then it would logically be subject to the same forces as other matter, thus no space warping would be required.
the assumption that "photon mass = 0" is essential for other theories to work properly, but it could well be that these other theories have a fatal flaw that requires the assumption of a zero mass photon to work.
these assumptions could be as flawed as the assumption that photons DO have mass.
i find the idea that other theories might be wrong (but close enough for most applications) much more likely than the idea that gravity alters the shape of Untestable Nothingness to cause effects on observable phenomena.
since truely empty space is untestable, any theory that calls for empty space to be altered by gravity is by definition untestable and thus suspect.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
That's not a reason. Non-euclidean space also will 'act' at a distance.
It is strong evidence, especially when compared to the prediction of how much light will bend as a result of Einstein Field Equations calculating the amount of spacetime warping was spot on, while the effect of Newtonian gravitational 'pull' comes up with different results.
Of course light is affected by gravity but it would be circular reasoning to imply that gravity is pulling on something in light (mass), therefore light has mass, therefore gravity is a field force, etc.
Yet being told your thinking is incorrect does not seem to make you want to do more research to determine what Einstein actually says about it. Instead you cling to your wrong thinking in order to support wrong conclusions.
Pointing out experimental limits is not 'hedging.'
Based on the prior knowledge of photons not having mass, and even if they did have some mass, the deviation is much more that would be predicted by Newtonian gravitation, therefore we are left with the conclusion that light is being bent because it is following a straght path through a geodesic.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
im not implying kip thorne,, steven hawking albert einstein's brain in an indestructible robot body, and max planck's reanimated corpse are plotting some nefarious scheme to overthrow our newtonian universe and force us all to work as slaves in their plutonian dark matter mines, and that declassifying pluto as a planet is just a necessary first step to allow them to institute slavery on pluto by declaring it a non-planetary body and thus outside interstellar law...
im just saying it's out there.
if you made these same assertions 50 years ago nobody would have believed you, 100 years ago you would have been laughed out of academia, and 400 years ago you might have been tortured into recanting before you were burnt at the stake.
in another 50 years perhaps somebody will prove the living shit out of these theories without using zero as the prime factors in equations that end in a non zero result.
in fact in non-euclidean space the statement in your sig is correct... parallel lines would meet at infinity. but i dont believe that is true either.
i ma quite willing to accept that objects and forces can interact, but when your mathematical proof requires the acceptance that the result of multiplying zero by any number is anything other than zero, then im gonna need to see some better proof than 30 gazzillion times zero equals the force of a photon hitting a brick.
bricks dont care how many times you hit them with the force of 30 gazzillion times zero. they will not move.
one brick at an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second over a time of 4 seconds can fuck shit up though. one second, not so much. but four seconds can rock your world.
Zero bricks accelerating at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, even over the course of a couple hours wont do shit. i can guarantee that it wont even mess up your hair.
im just saying it's out there.
if you made these same assertions 50 years ago nobody would have believed you, 100 years ago you would have been laughed out of academia, and 400 years ago you might have been tortured into recanting before you were burnt at the stake.
in another 50 years perhaps somebody will prove the living shit out of these theories without using zero as the prime factors in equations that end in a non zero result.
in fact in non-euclidean space the statement in your sig is correct... parallel lines would meet at infinity. but i dont believe that is true either.
i ma quite willing to accept that objects and forces can interact, but when your mathematical proof requires the acceptance that the result of multiplying zero by any number is anything other than zero, then im gonna need to see some better proof than 30 gazzillion times zero equals the force of a photon hitting a brick.
bricks dont care how many times you hit them with the force of 30 gazzillion times zero. they will not move.
one brick at an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second over a time of 4 seconds can fuck shit up though. one second, not so much. but four seconds can rock your world.
Zero bricks accelerating at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, even over the course of a couple hours wont do shit. i can guarantee that it wont even mess up your hair.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Babble much?
I have no idea what you are saying now.
50 years ago, Einstein's theories were well accepted. 100 years ago, special relativity was already finished and general relativity was almost complete.
Proposing what might be in the future is irrelevant when evaluating the strength or weaknesses of current scientific theories.
Context is everything.
Strawman. Your lack of understanding of relativistic momentum and the math does not make your simplistic assessment of the situation correct.
non-sequitur, strawman and all-around terrible analogies. Continuing to apply Newtonian assumptions and math to relativistic situations (as already explained) does not in any way address or contradict the facts but only serves to make you (continue to) look stupid.