Switch off at the socket?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If you go for I THINK anaerobic decomposition, the carbon in the tree or
plant eventually becomes carbon, or hydrocarbon..typically methane.

OK, but how's that gonna happen? Trees are surrounded by air, so there is
no way - in their natural environment - that there'll be much anaerobic
decomposition taking place.

Mind you, you definitely don't want any methane - it's a very potent global
warmer.

That is after all what carbon based fuels are..old swamps. silted over and
left to fester for a few million years.

Agreed, although the climatic conditions were very different back then. I
don't think there's much new peat or coal being formed these days, although
if you've got some links to supporting research, that would be great.

No, you can store it where it wont be subject to oxidation, thats all.

Typically underwater.

I don't think you mean "oxidation", do you? Anyway, didn't you say that
anaerobic decomposition would produce methane?

Whatever - I think we can both agree that thinking trees will absorb CO2 to
any significant extent is wrong, and designing environmental policies around
it is wrong, too. Whilst *some* of a dead tree *might* end up as peat or
carbon, most of it goes straight back to CO2.

SteveT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in any
terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be. They
are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say is that
they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably wrong, but iot
took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is not.

If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible. Science
is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best statement
about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due course
by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are problems with
two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
because where they overlap they disagree. One day we'll find something
better. Until then, they are both extremely useful for day-to-day science
and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

STeveT

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.

Bill

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:15:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body.

Now you reveal your ignorance of scientific definitions in addition
to your ignorance of scientific principles.

I gave a reputable source as the origin of the definition I used. Are they
wrong? If so, who are you to say that?

What you have given in imprecise terms is the definition of amount
of substance (for which the SI unit is the mole).

No, that's not the same.

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object
or the proportion between force and acceleration referred
to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

As you are not prepared to use the correct definitions, it is becoming
more and more apparent that any discussion with you is totally
pointless.

My definition at least came with a source. What's yours?

Furthermore your repeated attempts to ridicule any scientific evidence
suggests that you are acting in the capacity of a troll.

I do not and have not ridiculed any scientific evidence. Why do you say I
have?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
As you continue to make unsubstantiated claims without entering into
reasoned debate, you are appearing more and more like the Alf Garnett
of physics.
Trying to prove black is white doesn't sound like Alf Gartnett to me.

Bill

Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in
any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be.
They are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say
is that they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably
wrong, but iot took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is
not. If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best
statement about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due
course by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are
problems with two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, because where they overlap they disagree. One day
we'll find something better. Until then, they are both extremely
useful for day-to-day science and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Ron Lowe wrote:
Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

I've always found Kingshouse very welcoming - what were you doing wrong?


Oh, not much.

I've found it welcoming when staying as a room guest, but the barman in
the climber's bar round the back could be somewhat surly to us as mere
campers.

It's been a few years since I've camped in Glencoe.
( You can no longer camp in the bog beside the clachaig; they dug bloody
great trenches to stop it. You now have to use 'official' campsites,
like the grim Red Squirrel or the distant forrestry commision one. )

I've just got back from a long weekend climbing in the Lakes, we were
camping in Langdale. I was warned to expect to order a 'pint of your
surliest attitude, landlord', but that did not transpire.

Both the Old Dungeon Ghyll and the pub in Chapel Style were both very
welcoming. First Class.

--
Ron

Bill Wright wrote:

Trying to prove black is white doesn't sound like Alf Gartnett to me.

Indeed, and is only likely to lead to a nasty accident when using a Zebra
Crossing.

(RIP Douglas Adams)



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On 18 Sep, 18:59, "Bill Wright" wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...



"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.

Bill

You've obviously never met George Michael then.

--
Halmyre

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head there! None of this has anything
relevant to say about whether you should switch off at the socket or not.

sTeveT