[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <JMC.96Aug17081450@Steam.stanford.edu>, John McCarthy
<jmc@Steam.stanford.edu> writes
><JimBarr@wandana.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
>    Several years ago, at a symposium for astrophysicists held in London, an
>    experiment was carried out.  All the delegates were asked to calculate
>    how much energy it would take to bring one stationary electron from a
>    point in deep space ( but near a KNOWN stellar object) and bring it to
>    rest on the surface of the earth.
> 
>    They would allow for mass and movement of all *major* solar objects but
>    not asteroids or deep space objects apart from the one mentioned above.
> 
>    They were all *capable* of  doing the sums and several of them did so.
>    The unamazing fact was that the *answers* that these scientists came up
>    with differed by as much as 13 orders of magnitude.
> 
> I don't believe you. Please provide a citation.
> 
Actualy John, I do not believe it myself but you may have entirely
missed the point that I was making in telling the story.

>I don't understand.  
>
Well, your text suggests to me that you do understand quite a lot.

>It would seem to me that the energy required to move the electron
>depends entirely on the electric potential difference between the
>point in space and the surface of the earth.  I would expect that to
>be entirely unknown.  I doubt that the potential differences are known
>even within the solar system and may not even be constant over time.
>It seems to me from what I have read that a lot is known about the
>potential difference between the ionosphere and the earth's surface,
>but I don't know if it is constant geographically or in time.

Let us say for the sake of discussion that I remembered wrong, it was a
neutron, I makes very little difference to the tale.


The point of all your absolutely TRUE but unverifiable description of
how to solve the problem is that it did NOT stop very learned scientist
from 'having a go'.

You go with the facts and data you have and try very hard to take every
thing into account, you allow for the motion of the planets ( you seem
to have ignored the mass of the electron and gravity).

Lets try to keep this in the context of this thread.  When all the
results were read out and it was obvious that maybe no one got the
answer right and certainly nearly EVERYONE got it WRONG, I imagine that
quite a few of them started strutting around defending their solution.
One or two may have said 'Oh bum, I see where I went wrong'. 

The point is that there was nothing to gain by argument and evrything to
gain by patient exchange and understanding.

The experiment MAY have been a mind game, BUT during my years of
involvement with people who are working near the limits of provable
truth, I have heard of too many people getting passionate about their
own baby, to listen to an alternative hypothesis




Right back to the thread, I believe that *some* of the figures being
bandied around on this NG *may* be similar to the answers in my mind
game. 

Lets all look for solutions to the problem which is that we consume too
much energy and resources and contaminate the earth, The fact that we do
it more than nature is irrelevant, numbers are irrelevant *(If all we
ever do is argue about them)*.

I wear many hats in this debate and here I have to declare my faith in
Gia to sort the earths problems out, even at the cost of every living
creature on earth.

I am more interested in reading this debate than taking part, I find
some of the responses a bit to flamy, I know I would be offended If I
thought I had inspired such spite from a person who may or may not know
what he/she is talking about, but certainly knows nothing about me.


Best wishes and keep posting,     Jim





Jim Barr         Machine Conversation, Bedfordshire England
                 Best is the enemy of good enough
                 Leaves Rustle....Blades turn..... Water moves


References: