Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Bebben, oktober 12, 2011, 23:53:05 PM
SitatIn 1865, James Clerk Maxwell's prediction that light was an electromagnetic wave — which was confirmed experimentally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz's detection of radio waves — seemed to be the final blow to particle models of light.The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for all properties of light. The Maxwell theory predicts that the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity, not on its frequency; nevertheless, several independent types of experiments show that the energy imparted by light to atoms depends only on the light's frequency, not on its intensity. For example, some chemical reactions are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a certain threshold; light of frequency lower than the threshold, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reaction. Similarly, electrons can be ejected from a metal plate by shining light of sufficiently high frequency on it (the photoelectric effect); the energy of the ejected electron is related only to the light's frequency, not to its intensity.
Sitat fra: Amateur2 på desember 14, 2013, 15:42:51 PMClaes Johnson har en egen evne til å treffe godt med sine betraktninger. Denne gangen av den riktig ironiske sorten.How to Avoid Anthropogenic Global Cooling into New Ice Age
SitatClaes Johnson mener fysikken er i ferd med å fjerne seg mer og mer fra realisme og gå i retning av det mer mystiske, nesten religiøse, noe jeg kan si meg enig i.
SitatIn other words, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for formulating a definition almost empty of physics content.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på april 16, 2014, 20:39:33 PMDet eneste jeg kan kommentere om dette er ved hjelp av tre spørsmål. Det første er hvem som fjernet fysikken fra realismen? Det andre er når dette begynte? Det tredje er om en skal underslå kapasiteten til en gjeng tyske fysikere i mellomkrigstiden som sto bak forskning vi fortsatt drar nytte av i dag? Mange av disse forskerne var aktive innen mystisismen. Jeg gjetter at du selv ville kalt dem okkulte, men religiøse var de aldri det jeg vet.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på april 16, 2014, 20:39:33 PMJohnson skrev for ikke lenge siden:SitatIn other words, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for formulating a definition almost empty of physics content.http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/03/einstein-genius-by-definition-of-law-of.htmlMerkelig måte å få Nobelprisen i fysikk på. Knyter jeg en dårlig tørrflueimitasjon blir jeg straffet umiddelbart under prøvefiske. Har ikke naturvitenskapens prisutdelere samme kritiske sans som naturen selv har? Kanskje naturforskningen har fjernet seg fra naturen?
SitatLaloe illuminates the fact that modern physicists (and nobody else) do not understand the modern physics of quantum mechanics, and do not even pretend to do so, as a conceptual revolution away from classical physics based on understanding. The argument is that the linear Schrödinger equation must be more intelligent than Schrödinger, since Schrödinger admittedly could not understand it and nobody else has ever claimed to understand it either....But it is hard to understand that an equation that cannot be solved, always predicts exactly the correct results! It is more easy to believe that any observation made can be claimed to fit exactly with the equation, since checking is impossible.
SitatThe Ludwig Prandtl MedalToday I received the following message:Dear Professor Johnson, It is our great pleasure to inform you that you are the winner of the 2014 edition of the ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal. The decision has been taken by the ECCOMAS Award Committee in a two-round voting procedure. Please receive our warmest congratulations. The Ludwig Prandtl Medal will be delivered at the Opening Session of the WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014 Conference in Barcelona, July 21, 2014 (8:30-10:30). We would very much appreciate if you can confirm your participation.With our best regards and congratulations,Ekkehard RammECCOMAS PresidentJosef EberhardsteinerECCOMAS SecretaryHere is my answer:Dear Profs Ramm and EberhardsteinerThank you for this great honor, which I will be very happy to receive in person at the conference opening. The award has an interesting aspect from scientific point of view in that my work (with Johan Hoffman), shows that Prandtl's main idea of the fundamental role of the boundary layer, for both separation and drag and lift, crowning him as the Father of Moden Fluid Mechanics, is incorrect. We show that separation, drag and lift originate from instability of slightly viscous flow and not from a boundary layer. The evidence comes from solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary condition, which does not give rise to any boundary layer, and we obtain results in full agreement with observations. We conclude that separation, drag and lift in slightly viscous flow do not originate from a boundary layer and thus that Prandtl's main idea is not in agreement with observations.I would appreciate if this will be made clear to the public at the conference and I would certainly be willing to shortly expose the reasons why Prandtl was wrong. The fluid dynamics community will not applaud the award, since 20th century fluid mechanics has followed the Father in search of the origin of separation, drag and lift in the boundary layer. This has had a catastrophic impact on computational fluid mechanics leading to the strong belief that correct results require resolution of boundary layers, which however is impossible even in thinkable future since quadrillions of mesh-points would be required. The result is a dead-lock of rational science. We show that drag and lift of an airplane can today be accurately computed over the entire range of angles of attack including stall, by solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip using a couple of millions of mesh points. The award thus brings a major scientific question to the podium and I hope it can be accompanied by a scientific discussion.Sincerely, Claes Johnson
Sitat fra: Amateur2 på juni 18, 2014, 15:04:08 PMDet er vel for mye å håpe at klimaforskningen skal gjøre samme U-sving som man nå har gjort innenfor fluiddynamikk ....
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på juni 18, 2014, 15:11:00 PMDette var morsomt, Amateur2, og jeg håper fortjent.Sitat fra: Amateur2 på juni 18, 2014, 15:04:08 PMDet er vel for mye å håpe at klimaforskningen skal gjøre samme U-sving som man nå har gjort innenfor fluiddynamikk ....Ja, det er for mye å håpe på, for de har tvilsomt muligheten til å benytte denne vitenskapen som ei brekkstang til å tvinge gjennom politiske drømmer. Derfor vil den heller aldri kunne bli politisk forpestet i slik grad vi ser innen klimavitenskapen.Dermed gjenstår dette som et forhåpentlig rett steg i vitenskapelig utvikling. Dermed må jeg i Plancks ånd spørre, hvem er begravd nå?