Comments by "Michael Deierhoi" (@michaeldeierhoi4096) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  @Patatmetmayo  The understanding of the influence of CO2 is based on THEORY and NOT hypothesis which is essentially an educated guess. And theory is well tested explanation of a phenomena. The theory of climate change is well tested and has only become better understood over the last few decades.
    10
  2.  James Blackman  "It never worked because gravity is not real"? Based on what? What is holding to the earth? Not magnetism. Not the atomic forces. And in addition to your baseless claims you are insulting! There are standards of conduct for all who post comments here. You need to review those again.
    9
  3.  @ashleylaw  The Standard Model, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in fact all based on empirical data as well as theory just like so many, many other areas of science. This can all be accessed on the net. Again, you are criticising without basis which is a clear sign that you are reacting from an uninformed ideology.
    8
  4.  @ashleylaw  Go and talk to Pete on this thread. You both seem to be cut from the same psuedo-scientific mold!
    5
  5.  James Blackman  Really, then how do you explain moons orbiting planets or planets orbiting stars, etc? Atomic attraction? Magnetism? lol
    5
  6.  @dk-bw4gk  Temps were lower in the Precambrian despite high CO2 levels because the sun's radiance was far less then it is today. There was no land to absorb the sunlight either to reradiate the heat back into the atmosphere. It's also a stretch to say that CO2 was 210ppm in the Triassic. Those points distract from our current reality with tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for many decades. The atmospheric temperature is up 1.1 °C or 2.0 °F in the last 100 years precisely because of these rising CO2 emissions. And also to a lesser degree CH4 emissions.
    5
  7. ​ @meibing4912  Are you implying that YOU have a clue?? If so then why not provide some some insight otherwise you just talking BS??
    5
  8.  @ashleylaw  Why don't you just admit that you dont understand the science. After all it is well know that people will often ridicule what they don't understand. That is exactly what you are doing!!
    4
  9.  James Blackman  You are hopeless! Good luck in your delusional reality. You'll need it!!
    4
  10.  Pete  If the "everything" you describe is rife with impirical data that falsify them then you ought to be able to provide an example or two. I think that is a reasonable request.
    3
  11. It may be easier to think of that way, but physics is not about finding the easiest way to explain if it is wrong.
    3
  12.  @RyanMarice  Says the guy who has no understanding of either! Both relativity and QM have been rigorously tested. Your claim is baseless.
    3
  13. I have chose not to watched your video on principle. My principle for not watching it because I think you are stepping well outside your are of expertise which as we all know is physics. And I take issue with people who are knowledgeable in one area, which can be a broad area such as physics, but then go on to expound on every other subject under the sun. I think it is one thing to discuss such topics in private or small groups but I personally don't care for it in this venue further I think it diminished your focus when you step outside your area of expertise. imho
    3
  14. The video got you thinking and talking. Mission accomplished!!
    2
  15. Really? Let's see your proof or evidence or something. . .
    2
  16. @oswaldo That's some psuedoscience that I haven't seen in a while. But it's quite laughable and easily dismissed. For example why is El Niño routinely alternating with La Niña? And why is it only along the equator in the eastern Pacific that we see this warming in the Pacific during El Niño? I don't expect an answer from someone who clearly has no clue how El Niño occurs. My only advice to you,not that you would take it to heart, but stay in school and if you aren't in school then go back so you can learn at least a little about critical thinking skills. I
    2
  17. @Myapplewine. Then name one. Otherwise you just wasted a comment. I for one have no idea what you are talking about.
    2
  18. We don't even understand all the laws of nature so consequently there is and will continue to be debate about the laws of nature for quite some time.
    2
  19. @m765 It's true, the models have been remarkably accurate in the predicting global warming. However lately the warming and its effects have been UNDERestimated. Phenomena like the thawing of permafrost, the retreat of the Arctic ice cap and rate of ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland are happening quicker then predicted.
    2
  20. Following up on your first comment that QM and GR each work well in their own framework I think it is too early to say that there may be no unifying factor between the two. Otherwise we are speculating without justification. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about this question as well about dark matter and dark energy. The latter especially may be an attempt at a solution when in fact we may be misinterpreting the data. I am fascinated by the search for answers in nature and thus I would prefer to withhold any speculation without evidence pushing the answer one way or the another.
    2
  21. QM is incomplete, but that part requires a much longer video.
    2
  22. 😅😂. I would glad to be called a climate alarmist. After all when there is an emergency or crisis it is good to be at least a little alarmed. Climate change is a major emergency that should warrant all hands on deck to confront it. Sabine is one of many highly educated scientists that recognizes the threat of our warming climate. And there are many more scientists who study and follow climate or at least educate others about it then there are those that deny it!! At some point you'll realize that your denial of climate change won't protect you just like your denial of a F 4 tornado bearing down on your house won't protect you either.
    2
  23. Sorry, no. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the electric universe is a generalization and as soon as one looks at the details one sees that the explanation that contradict basic physics and cosmology and would make much of well established physics impossible which is ridiculous. Besides no reputable scientist supports this quackery. Have a good day.
    2
  24. But why do you agree with Lee Smolin? I'm sure there is much about QM that Smolin recognises as valid and you have taken that quote out of context
    2
  25. That's a funny use of the word goldmine. The comments are more like the refuse pit of comments struggling for relevancy with occasional precious stones scattered about.
    2
  26. Abandoning the mechanistic world, wholly or in part by the scientific community will require evidence and a respect for the scientific method to do so. And since science continues to evolve and perceive nature at an increasingly refined level anything is possible.
    2
  27.  @JohnHughesChampigny  Uranium may be cheap and available, but there are multiple problems with the current nuke plant. Right now the only new nuke plants under construction are in Georgia ( Vogtle plant in Waynesboro, Georgia) now running at tens of billions $$. and thus way over initial estimated costs. Nobody can afford these expensive beasts anymore. And the expectation of the small modular reactor has also dried up. The one company (Nuscale) that was mass produce small reactors withdrew their commitment. All these claims of how great nuclear power are empty because so little is actually happening in the US.
    2
  28.  @TVdinnermasterchef  In the same way Newton wasn't proven wrong just shown to be incomplete. He could not have imagined relativity in his time!
    2
  29. It proves nothing of the sort. Star clusters are a manifestation of the extreme distortion of space which draws all those galaxies to one area.
    1
  30. @Danny. The mystery of the double slit experiment is well justified. You admit yourself that you are not a scientist or teacher. If you study that experiment enough it is hard to come away with anything amazement because it is really very counter intuitive. How else can you explain one photon fired a two slit screen will pass through both slits as a wave and produce an array of parallel lines on the screen in the background screen with repeated firings?
    1
  31.  @Danny_6Handford  The key to understanding this question and "mystery" of the double slit experiment better is to look at several videos. It is never a good idea to base your conclusion on one video that addresses a subject as nuanced as this double slit experiment is.
    1
  32.  @Danny_6Handford  Good for you then for watching several videos on the subject. Then there is probably nothing I can add to this discussion. Have a good day.
    1
  33. Because translating the technology of navy nuclear tech in use to land based are two in entirely different things. The certification for land based SMR's would wholly different from what the navy requires. Then there's the issue of cost. Tens of billions are spent to build a few nuclear powered subs. Aircraft carriers are 5 billion a piece. The military ultimately gets whatever it wants almost no matter the cost. That's not practical on land based SMR's requiring hundreds of units.
    1
  34. Actually light is both a particle and a wave depending on how it is observed. The double slit experiment highlights this fact. Clearly light is composed of photons which are massless particles that travel at the speed of light, 300,000 kms per sec. And photons travel at different wave lengths depending on its energetic nature. e.g. light is microwaves and gamma rays and everything in between.
    1
  35. I think what crispy is referring to is the Honga Tonga Honga Ha' apai volcano that erupted at the beginning of last year in the west Pacific. It was unusual in that it did not produce much ash, but it did throw a huge amount of water into the upper atmosphere. That water could have led to minor warming to the climate though that affect may have abated by now.
    1
  36. This is how science progresses. When data is collected it is often not known to be flawed until later studies are completed. And in reality further studies must be done to evaluate the integrity of this more recent study. When researchers of any field are working at the cutting edge of our understanding some mistakes are going to be made as far as what to look at how many data points to collect and so on.
    1
  37.  @shockwave121  But saying a particular theory is wrong without some explanation or reasoning is useless as it provides no information.
    1
  38.  @shockwave121  Got it. You're on point. As well as can be expected.
    1
  39. If we leave time out the theory doesn't work. Einstein understood this 100 years ago and physicists understand it even better now.
    1
  40. And how long has the development been going on?? I have heard these high aspirations of molten salt reactors for years and still see nothing in practice. It sounds like more empty talk that produces nothing!!
    1
  41. I am convinced that even if we see frequent heat waves like hit the northwest in summer 2021 with a proportionally higher mortality and a couple huge Cat 5 hurricanes hitting the US every fall that people will still chalk it up to natural variation and insist that things will get back to 'normal'. As the old saying goes "It is easier to make people believe a lie then it is to disabuse them of that lie". Just look at how many people still support trump!!
    1
  42. The effect of geothermal energy in cooling the earth is probably akin to a few dozen mosquitos on an African elephant. Although maybe over millions of years there might be minimal impact. Regardless, the impact on the Earth's magnetic field would be nil because Earth's magnetic field is a result of the rotating FeNi core. The mantle plays no role in that process. imo of course
    1
  43. @Michael. Since you didn't include any of your data in your comment I find it impossible to respond specifically to your comment.
    1
  44. The ego of Elon Musk is clearly over runneth. He is like so many billionaires who think he can opine on anything regardless of whether it is well outside his area of expertise. As far as the population issue which he thinks could expand by billions he completely ignores the negative impact being done now to natural areas which are continually being developed.
    1
  45.  @galev3955  Well put. That's for the response.
    1
  46. Blade. General Relativity is necessary to compensate for the time dilation between earth and objects orbiting the planet. Only in this way can things like GPS provide accurate information in a timely manner as time does go slower in orbit then on earth.
    1
  47.  @RyanMarice  I have to see the specific details of such things as the binary star that you mention before considering that GR has failed somehow.
    1
  48.  @RyanMarice  I'll get back to you on that!
    1
  49. As Sabine said at end that maybe Musk is right that we could squeeze a few billion more onto the planet if we do it right. But we aren't doing 'right' now nor are their indications that we have learned much about how to do it right. The main problem goes back to what Sabine talks about in relation to our carrying capacity. The more humans expand development into fragile ecosystems the more likely we likely we use up resources and increase the threat to the earth and thus us!! If we lose enough of the wild places in the world then humans are soon to follow. And as Sabine stated there are several threats to life on earth which could throw our whole balance, of what little there is out of whack. War, climate change, a pandemic are a threat to life on earth and could through off our trajectory going forward in a bad way.
    1
  50. There is no evidence for that. The interaction between atoms from my understanding is totally dependent on molecular bonds, covalent bonds, etc. Researchers would have idenified what you describe by now if it existed. It is well understood that gravity is the weakest of the four forces. So weak that it may require a much stronger accelerator to detect it.
    1