More respian developer insanity

....

At the risk of flying a kite, I think we should note that (at least AFAIAA - I'm decades out of date on this stuff) most (all?) calculations are based in the assumption that ε0, μ0 (and hence c) have the same values everywhere and everywhen.

We've only measured them within a remarkably small space-time region, yet extrapolate the observed constancy-within-experimental-errors to the entire universe throughout its history. Is that too arrogant an assumption?

I can't help but wonder if the need for "dark matter" would go away if things weren't as constant as is generally held.

Bit like climate science in its way :-)

SSHH!

Einstein was faced with a dilemma. Or possibly a trilemma. The assumed absolute nature of space, and time, didn't gybe with the constant speed of light.

Something had to give, and become variable. In the end it was space AND time that became relative.

We dream up absolutes, apply them to the world, and if they seem to work, assume them to be ubiquitous.

That's how we think.

Doesn't mean it is how it is, at all.

Very likely but the assumption of mediocrity along with the assumption of consistency are pretty fundamental not because we're sure they're true but because we can't say anything useful if they're not. These assumptions are why science is also based on faith - faith that the universe

It's a bit like those fundies who say that everything was created 6000 years ago at a precisely specified time/date - along with all the fossils and other evidence of the big bang etc. Well, we don't *actually* know that this is untrue, but it's a poor working hypothesis. After all, you could apply the exact same logic to say that it was all created (along with our memories of earlier times), exactly 2, no sorry 3, no sorry 4, etc - seconds ago. But what would be the point?

Ultimately we're looking for a self-consistent hypothesis whcih can make useful predictions and that is without arbitrary conditions. And in any case, we don't know that we're not living in a giant simulation, created by what would appear to us to be God. Which is what religious believers think anyway.

Thanks for that link. Most interesting.

Indeed, and seemingly being kicked into the long grass and otherwise ignored.

True, but not what I was on about: I was merely pointing out that they're still there and being treated as SEP (Someone Else's Problem).

Not what I meant at all - more solar would be better and so would geo- thermal, which looks as if its no longer being ignored.

yes, but a lot of it (modelling) *does seem to work*.

Amidst the change, some things seem to remain constant.

The problem is we are now too reliant on 'science' in that everybody hails something that has a computer program or some maths attached as 'real science' and if you don't buy the narrative you are a 'science denier'.

Faith for me is a very different thing to a religious person. Faith to a religious person is something they believe to be true. Faith, to me, is a methodology - a way to proceed when I don't know and indeed *cannot know*, what is true. One behaves *as if* the precepts of science are true. And results come.

The danger is to unwittingly relate to that as if the precepts *were* true, just because models derived from them *work*.

And worse even that that, to call them true, when models derived from them *don't* work. Because they are 'scientific'..

That is of course (one reason) why one studies metaphysics, to see if there is any point to obscure, but possible scenarios.

And finds that there are very good reasons. Many fundamental Christians are fundamentally (sic!) secure and certain in their mental and emotional relationship with the universe, because God is looking after all of it and they need not therefore worry about it, just follow the instruction manual that god gave them. Called the Bible...And that instruction manual teaches them to create secure nuclear families and not be too tribal.

In the context of a iron age agricultural society, this is very socially cohesive

Indeed. Summarized as the Problem of Induction. What we perceive is what we perceive. What we *infer* from it in terms of abstract entities - be they Gods or Laws - that are *causing it* is, like Heffalumps, always open to interpretation.

Its bad enough to realise that science is just a collection of models that work, but when the realization dawns that the every day world is, to us, simply another example of a model that seems to work, albeit being modelled at a very subconscious level..

In the UK, we're too far north for sensible solar, especially in winter when you need it most. Not much geothermal here either, I wouldn't have thought.

The real problem with renewables here is in winter, when you can get periods of a week or more with a blocking high over most of northern Europe, leading to no solar and not much wind. That happens a couple of times a winter, typically.

It's interesting how that term seems to have shifted.

When I first encountered it geothermal was about running heat engines off the magma, which seems at first sight to be an enormous source of energy that it may even be beneficial to tap. Turned out to be a really good way to wear out equipment fast.

These days geothermal seems to be more about pulling stored solar heat out of the ground a far more feasible prospect.

True, but wind and maybe tidal power are both fine in winter.

You might also take a look at what is now being talked about for geothermal: new drilling techniques are being developed, giving the ability to tap much higher temperatures than have previously been considered. Here's an example of what's being discussed:

Fair point, and I've seen estimates of recoverable uranium that would indicate that there's a lot less of that than many people assume.

This seems like a reasonable summary (the original 2005 paper was updated last month :

Not wind, as I already said. Tidal? Only one place in the UK (the Severn estuary) where that would generate a lot. But then any tidal produces zero four times a day. So you need a backup, and there are no comparably sized tidal locations elewhere in the UK. So your backup has to be nuclear and you'd have done better, more reliably, to have only built the nuclear in the first place. No point in building two power stations and only getting the output of one.

But with an even worse return on investment.

They are not fine at any time. If you bother to examine the numbers.

No, it is probably technically accurate though.

Or a massive great extension cable connecting he tidal power to somewhere else. Again more expense to solve an inherent problem nuclear power doesn't have,

If power is not being generated where you want it , when you want it, it costs you a lot of money that is ignored by the green fascists.