A Riddle to End Copenhagen

As you may know from my books, I have explained how spoken human language suffers from Gödelian Incompleteness and therefore cannot always be trusted to say something meaningful. At the same time, I have explained how useless it is to play such word-games in philosophy and then pretend that paradoxes in spoken language have anything at all to say about reality. Of course, it is the resolution to paradoxes which have something to say about reality, and as we learned in my last book, in physics such paradoxes are resolved by mathematics which then tells you, if you’re paying attention, that an Ontological Mathematics must be the logical basis of knowledge of reality.

Let me repeat that, because it is important: scientific paradoxes which can be created in axiomatic languages, such as any spoken human language, can be solved with the correct application of mathematics. The point is that one requires the correct mathematics, but, this is not always known. In Zeno’s time the correct mathematics was not known, and thus his paradox of motion remained unsolved for thousands of years, until the advent of calculus. In modern times, quantum mechanics and its so-called Copenhagen-interpretation is known to be rife with paradoxes, such as wave-particle duality, and dead-alive cats, but given the historical nature of such things, do you think that such paradoxes are the true nature of base reality, or, are they due to an incomplete understanding or development of the necessary mathematics?

I’m reminded of Alice in Wonderland, the cartoon at least, and Alice wondering what a world of nonsense would be like? Can base reality truly be paradoxical at the core? How paradoxical? To what extent? If it is, by whence come any laws of physics at all? Why should the planets stay in their orbits? Why is anything constant to any extent? Why can’t I have a paradox right now? You get the idea. Clearly, the problem is in the language attempting to understand the mathematics.

So, here’s a riddle which will destroy any modern quantum physicist. I invite you to try this out on any you might meet. Honestly ask them for an answer to the riddle. I won’t explain it, but it goes like this:

If a quantum event would cause a tree to fall in a forest, in front of a blind man, would it make a sound?

Enjoy your results with that.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

217 Responses to A Riddle to End Copenhagen

  1. Nepal says:

    Very cool JP. What is the correct interpretation of wave function collapse?

  2. ashemann says:

    Only if it fell on his head, am i right..

  3. Joseph E Postma says:

    “What is the correct interpretation of wave function collapse?”

    That’s not a thing, first of all 🙂

  4. Nepal says:

    Okay, what is the solution to the measurement problem?? 🙂

  5. CD Marshall says:

    A quantum event can be considered an observer event,

    “The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.”

    That sounds more like metaphysics to me: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Abstract theory with no basis in reality. {Anthropocentric climate change}

  6. CD Marshall says:

    The tree falling in the woods is not “affected” by observation of any kind. The end result could be, however. For instance, I observed a tree fall in my back yard, as a result I cut the thing into pieces and put it on my front lawn. Moments later it was taken for firewood. My observation did not change the tree falling but it certainly changed the end results.

  7. CD Marshall says:

    I AM however, concerned about a blind man in the middle of the woods. 😂

  8. CD Marshall says:

    Joe or others,
    This guy supports Henrik Svensmark’s work here,

    Click to access SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf

    And wrote an unpublished supporting paper here,
    http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/Putting%20the%20Meteors%20back%20in%20Meteorology%20%281%29%20%281%29%20%281%29.html

    Anyone is bored and wants to give me your thoughts be my guest.

  9. CD Marshall says:

  10. CD Marshall says:

    I also show him your model.

  11. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    “What is the correct interpretation of wave function collapse?”

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “That’s not a thing, first of all ”

    Exactly so… a wave function ‘collapse’ is merely an observation. Before we observe a system, it can be in any number of possible states, but our observation of the system fixes the system state at that moment in time to the observed state. We can mathematically obtain which states the system is most likely to be in at any given moment, but we cannot know whether it is in any given state until we observe it… unfortunately, our observation necessitates interaction with the system, which changes the outcome of the system by some amount (for instance, we cannot know the helicity of a photon without interacting with that photon, which usually destroys it). That’s why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle… it’s not that the universe is inherently uncertain, it’s that our measurement of a system introduces uncertainties by necessarily interacting with the system and thus affecting its outcome.

    That’s why researchers are attempting ‘light touch’ measurement aka weak measurement… interacting with the system less affects the outcome of the system less. One Young’s double-slit experiment, for example, merely measured the polarization of each passing photon, with the end result being a validation of the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory.

  12. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNsNsHsUYAEcCFT?format=png&name=small

    Strange… the sun outputs more IR than our planet (a warmer object will have higher energy density and thus higher flux at all wavelengths than a cooler object), yet that diagram shows solar insolation being absorbed by water vapor and O3 and dust of only 19 units, but the lower-flux upwelling terrestrial IR flux being absorbed by water vapor and CO2 and O3 at a rate of 106 units (greater upwelling terrestrial than solar downwelling, which is insane), and returning 100 units downwelling… returning back to the surface just as much as the sun itself.

    Yeah, that makes sense, in a world where college kids aren’t taught critical thinking or simple math. LOL

  13. Joseph E Postma says:

    Added reply here CD:

  14. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks Joe.

  15. CD Marshall says:

    I had this conversation with Pierrhumbert, ended about the same…

  16. CD Marshall says:

    At least he responded though unlike that guy from Alabama. 😒

  17. Nepal says:

    I like the many worlds interpretation myself. Follow the same math that has been verified over and over in experiment (Schroedinger equation), and extend it to the things that unfortunately we can’t measure (what happens to the other parts of the wave function). But I want to hear what Joe has to say on the matter

  18. CD Marshall says:

    The Thermosphere can reach 2,000 Celsius.
    That’s 1,513,992 watts.

  19. Very low emissivity though…not emitting like a blackbody.

  20. CD Marshall says:

    Someone tweeted…
    “In 2015, Jacob Rothchild accused Putin of being a “traitor to the New World Order”.

    “allegedly” 🤷‍♂️

  21. Richard says:

    Joe,
    About your riddle, when you’re blind this fact means you cannot see, So how are you going to observe anything? If the ear of the blind man detects someting or not it will never give him a clue. about what is causing this noise. And more important, how can a mathematical event even cause a fysical fall of a tree?

  22. boomie789 says:

    Putin Just wants his own world order though. Admittedly some things about would be better, some things much worse. The GAE (Global American Empire) Gangsters Vs. The Russian Mafia Federation.

    Or maybe it is just another ploy in a depopulation scheme and Putin is just playing his role.

  23. Zelator says:

    Richard, everything is mathematical. Everything is vibration.
    So logic suggests everything is mathematical vibration, ( sinusoidal waves) hence
    electromagnetic energy vibrating can cause ANYTHING in the physical world to manifest.

    Thats how the 3d material world of matter manifests form zero point balance.
    It’s extended vibration from the zero point that creates matter from unextended “no-thing” or from MIND aka (the Void).

  24. Zelator says:

    Therefore everything has a signature, a mathematical solution or formula for a precise event of manifestastion.

  25. boomie789 says:

  26. Zelator says:

    The observer would introduce a pertubation which would change the mathematics.

    It’s not a collapse so much as the maths changes and therefore the outcome.

    It’s a sort of excitation of the quantum field. If no-one is there to observe it then
    the maths is different. The manifestation or effect is dependent on the initial cause the ontological mathematical code.

    Once its observed the manifestation form changes. Any conscious interaction will change the quantum field and therefore the effect of the initial cause.

    Consciousness is the field ( the subconscious) therefore any interaction from a conscious being
    would have an effect on the initial pertubation.

    Humans are creators. We create form the field. The field is the subconscious mind.
    We are all linked via the subconscious mind. It is the canvas that everything is imprinted
    onto via “intent”. Intention is the initial cause. The CREATION EVENT.

  27. Zelator says:

    Boomie, your on the right lines. I will put together something for you from what I know. Probably tomorrow now.

  28. Richard says:

    Zelator, you say everything is mathematical and vibrational. I would say that the mathematics is not vibrating it is the physical thing that is capable of vibrating or better capable of turning on itself which translates into a sinus wave. Mathematics is a description and you are taking this as the reality and so are the people who are promoting QM. This is a big mistake. You are using words like the “vibrating zero point” to describe “something” that is not even there, this is called reification.

  29. Zelator says:

    I am not saying mathematics is vibrating. I am saying the vibration is a mathematical code or frequency. Mathematics is reality. It is the underlying substance of everything. I didn’t say vibrating zero point. What I said was zero point was the net to zero of all positive and negative numbers and is therefore the starting point and balance. Mind is unextended from zero point and matter is extended from zero point.

  30. Zelator says:

    Read Joes book. He explains it better than me.

  31. Joseph E Postma says:

    We are smack into metaphysical questions here Z & R!

    I’ll be doing a series on the metaphysics of ontological mathematics, titled “The Theory of Everything”, starting very soon.

    That is the question: WHAT is there? Is matter, something “physical” what is there, or is there something behind the appearances which is there, as in Plato’s Cave, which creates the appearances?

    We have the theory of everything now. I’ll try to lay it out.

    It starts with answering: why does something exist rather than nothing? That’s part 1, which I have ready to go in PowerPoint…have 3 parts ready in fact…but part 1 maybe I’ll get to this weekend and upload on YouTube.

  32. Zelator says:

    Great stuff Joe. Richard, I would advise you if you haven’t already to read Joes book and then the above will make more sense. Cheers. Z

  33. CD Marshall says:

    What “exists” around us exists to us as we perceive it. That perception has formed human reality, what if this perceived reality is actually limiting our advancements in science?

    Practical minds create practical science, and we need that. Visionaries attempt to create what we as of yet, cannot comprehend.

    That which we cannot comprehend after it is created, decades later, becomes the practical science.

    We cannot be a space faring race under the current limitations of our reality and applied science.

    So, something must change. We as a human species must evolve.

  34. Joseph E Postma says:

    Well said.

    Starting with ridding the planet/humanity of this viral infection.

  35. CD Marshall says:

    Explain this please.

    “Alan Tomalty
    @ATomalty
    · 13h

    Click to access AlgorithmDescription_01B-05.pdf

    “The absolute calibration criterion then requires that the mission-averaged antenna temperature(Ta) equals the Radiative Transfer Model (RTM Ta).” So climate science measures atmospheric brightness temperatures by adjusting them to equal the RTM models.

  36. Barry says:

    How can we move forward when. Last Friday here in BC we were relieved of the mask on Saturday 70to80 % still wearing them. This is how stupid our society is, how can we go forward when on one has any critical thinking skills. I can’t tell you guys how much I appreciate you all even though I’m not at your academic level I recognize actual intelligence when I see it . Gives me a bit of hope in my fellow man.

  37. Joseph E Postma says:

    Cheers Barry…yes, we won’t be developing a new level of consciousness with such people…

  38. CD Marshall says:

    This guy wins the AGW gold star and he has a blog endorsing AGW.

    T, P and ρ all vary with altitude. They also depend on gravity g, the total mass of the atmosphere, and the heat transfer through the layers (lapse rate). The ideal gas law on its own tells us nothing.
    @ClimateDetecti1

    Do you have a PhD in physics? Have you ever published any papers on thermodynamics? Fortunately I have done both. Which is why I know that ρ is not independently known. It changes with height and many other variables and conditions, and so therefore must the temperature.

  39. Zelator says:

    We have a Political Party here in the UK against, Vaccines, 5G and the hypocritical dangerous life threatening demonisation of CO2 i.e AGW.

    It is based in the UK but the information is generally duplicatable anywhere in the world/

    https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/ or S.U.N.

    You can support it or just sign up for the free newsletter. It’s very informative and gives contacts, and free downloads of Posters and Memes etc.

    I am not affilited in any way, but it may be useful to some people on here, especially those from the UK; but as I said its applicable to everyone.

    Here is this weeks newsletter as an example:

    https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/newsletter-in-the-day-of-our-lord-2/

    Cheers Z

  40. Richard says:

    Zelator,
    I have read Joe’s books and I am very curious how Joe is going to lay out the differences between ontological mathematics and the mathematics used in mathematical fysics.

  41. Zelator says:

    You know what Richard that is a good observation. I have always thought it misleading a little to talk about Ontological “Mathematics”, when I think it would be better to describe it as Ontological Science.

    Even though the foundations are mathematical it is philosophical science as well.

    I think a lot of people get confused by the word “Mathematics” in the Phrase Ontological Mathematics, as when you read the books by Mike Hockney who possibly was the founder of the term you notice the books are not just full of formulas but deep philosophical discussion, and is I believe were yourself and many of us get confused by the term. I know I did when I first read Hockney’s books.

    Joe in his latest book made it more layman than Hockney, but I agree it will be fascinating how Joe approaches it.

    See this from the God Equation by Mike Hockey:

    Synopsis:

    “Euler’s Formula is the most beautiful equation in mathematics. Yet it’s much more. It the governs the universe and defines the soul! Euler’s Formula perfectly complements Leibniz’s Monadology.

    They form the most powerful intellectual combination ever, capable of establishing a true grand unified theory of everything, including religion.

    It provides a rational explanation of near-death and out-of-body experiences, and homeopathy. It overturns Einstein’s principle of relativity, providing the same results via an absolute framework that restores the reality principle.

    In this groundbreaking book, we provide the solution to the Cartesian mind-body problem via the Fourier transform – which has the Euler Formula as its engine. We present the Riemann sphere, which works in perfect harmony with the Euler Formula, as the ideal working model of the human soul. And we give the first ever technical explanation of the process of reincarnation. The Euler equation is everything you thought – and more. It’s divine”.

    The God Equation:

    I’m glad you aked that question, as I think its one many readers would agree with.

    Cheers Z

  42. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s Euler’s Identity, which is a special case of Euler’s Formula, e^(ix) = cos(x) +isin(x), which is the “God Equation” proper. I’ll explain this soon…have 6 parts ready to go now developed in powerpoint…just need to do the video narration. I’ll try for one a week starting soon…gotta get a hair cut first lol.

  43. Zelator says:

    Brilliant, you could provide them as a link as an addendum to your book, like an after service. It would advertise your Youtube Channel as well! Really looking forward to them. Sometimes Hockney’s concepts can be complicated, but a visual aid always helps. Surprised they never did any. ( the Illuminati – that is)

  44. Zelator says:

    Or maybe Morgue was their front man?

  45. Joseph E Postma says:

    Games within games…

  46. Zelator says:

    Yeh I never took to him. Made it all sound childish.

  47. Zelator says:

    I think Hockney was the only real brain behind the AC phenomenon.

  48. Joseph E Postma says:

    Seems to me to keep reinforcing the general perception among the normies that anything esoteric or at least “not science peer reviewed” is whacky, weird, gross, homo, freaky, not something you want your children around, etc.

    Games within games…

    I’ll present it in a total healthy, clean, respectful manner, where you would want your children to be, and which they can understand and relate to.

    I already teach lessons on it to my 8y/o girl. I should write them down. I’ll likely discuss it in the series.

  49. Joseph E Postma says:

    ^referencing Morgue^

  50. Zelator says:

    Yeh the whole scene was sort of Sado/Masochistic/Bondage Sin for Salvation shit. Definitely not for the clean living. I wonder what Hockney made of that with his brain? Seems wasteful and non conducive for such a genius.

  51. CD Marshall says:

    “On the 16th local time, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a televised speech. Agence France-Presse reported that Putin said that Ukraine would not be allowed to become a “springboard” for threatening Russia.”

    So now we have a reason or the excuse.

  52. CD Marshall says:

    Estimated 400 billion stars in the Milky Way.
    At least 100 billion planets in our galaxy.
    Estimated 2 trillion galaxies in what we perceive as the observable universe.
    Estimated 21.6 sextillion (maybe more or less) planets in the observable universe.
    Humanity has set foot on how many planets? 1 (Earth).
    Conclusion? Humanity doesn’t know anything.

  53. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Richard wrote:
    “You are using words like the “vibrating zero point” to describe “something” that is not even there, this is called reification.”

    No, the zero point field exists… it that energy which has maximally entropied… that energy doesn’t just disappear (conservation of energy), it just reaches a point where we cannot extract usable energy from that pool of energy unless we create an artificially-lower energy state than the zero point field. I’ve detailed two methods by which to do so in other posts.

    Going back to my prior lake analogy, the zero point field is somewhat akin to the level of the lake… except our analogous lake can ‘flow’ with zero viscosity, and it will ‘flow’ to an even lower ‘level’ if we entropy that energy even more. We cannot extract energy from the bulk liquid in the lake (without creating an artificially-lower ‘level’). The ripples on the surface of the lake are energy which we can use without having to create an artificially-lower energy state than the zero point field, and you can imagine persistent waves or persistent vortexes (which don’t exist for an actual lake, but the quantum world is a bit more complicated than our simplified analogy) as meta-stable invariant-mass matter.

    I say “meta-stable” because the invariant-mass matter we know is only ‘stable’ because of the quantum vacuum zero point energy field… without it, bound electrons would ‘spiral-in’ to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s), undergo electron capture, the nucleus would undergo electron capture decay, which would cause transmutation, and thus matter wouldn’t be meta-stable. Eventually all matter would ‘unwind’ back into energy in accord with E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.

    It’s not a perfect analogy, of course.

  54. CD Marshall says:

    So does anyone think “cold fusion” will ever be possible or in reality do we need a power source greater than fusion? Can we create zero point energy in the future?

    They always try and prevent any form of energy evolution with such stupidity. Remember when the Large Hadron Collider was being built?

    Some still claim if a micro blackhole is created it would destroy Earth. I admit any dangerous experiments shouldn’t be done on Earth but to get frequently to space we need to get there first. A space station where dangerous experiments are conducted would be very intelligent for the future at a very safe distance from Earth.

    A network of space stations from Earth to Mars and Venus would be something and another network to the Belt.

    I think Roddenberry had the right idea in Start Trek, until humans exceed beyond petty feelings and can truly master the mind we can’t get to the next level of evolution. Imagine a human mind that can move faster than a computer. Now imagine a human mind moving faster than many computers.

  55. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    We’ll never be able to create ZPE, but we can change the form of ZPE to electrical power or photons pretty easily right now. I’ve discussed two means by which to do so in prior posts. The trick is to scale it to industrial size. The tabletop toy model I built works and has COP >1, but if I want to scale it up, I’ve got to do all the experimentation all over again, as I don’t have the equations yet that’ll allow scaling to any given output. As I build more units, I’ll be able to derive the equations that’ll let me extrapolate or interpolate the parameters for any given output. I was thinking about next building a tiny one based upon a planar transformer design that’d replace the battery in a cell phone, coupled to a flat ultracapacitor. It’d be a battery that never needs charging and which never dies.

    As to microblackholes, they necessarily evaporate very quickly… one of them would have to be in direct contact with some material that feeds the black hole faster than it evaporates in order for it to grow rather than evaporate… although it’d be interesting to see a space station spaghettify and disappear ‘down the drain’ like some sort of real-life Salvador Dali surrealist painting. LOL

  56. CD Marshall says:

    For some reason I’m picturing a black hole stopping an asteroid from striking Earth and then popping out of existence. 😂😂😂

  57. Show it to us LOL! The table top model with COP > 1. Pics & vid demo! Sounds awesome!

  58. CD Marshall says:

    An engineering paper on COP>1

    Click to access COP_1_motot_generator.pdf

    Joe, I think you’re crazy enough to test it.

  59. Richard says:

    L@KKK,
    I always have difficulties with understanding when people talk about things that are maximized and that somehow are still capable of going beyond that border. You talk about maximal entropy and thereafter of even more entropy. This is an example of one of the serious problems of QM, in it they talk about a vacuum that really is not a vacuum because they need all kind of stuff existing in an coming out of this so called vacuum. Get your language right is my advice and afterwards hopefully your imagination will get grounded.

  60. Joseph E Postma says:

    https://notrickszone.com/2022/03/14/new-study-the-co2-drives-global-warming-concept-is-obsolete-and-incorrect/comment-page-1

    My comment: “We’ve kinda all known that greenhouse gas theory was bunk from the beginning of it in the 1990’s…lol.

    See link in my handle…you have no idea…or maybe you do…of just how fraudulent the “science” is. It’s the best science that politics can buy.”

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
    – Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    And when it finally becomes self-evident, the people who did the work to expose the previous lies and spread the truth are forgotten and receive no credit…lol!

  61. CD Marshall says:

    Joe,
    Exactly! Continental drift comes to mind. I don’t even recall his name anymore, how sad is that? Yet he was right all along.

  62. CD Marshall says:

    Why does the president of Ukraine look like a thug? I see no difference between him and Putin at face value. I would not trust either one of them at my birthday party. 🥳🤡🍕🍰

  63. boomie789 says:

    (https://files.catbox.moe/bk7gwm.mp4)


    WHO WARN NEW OUTBREAK COULD BECOME ‘HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE’

    Head of WHO Emergencies Programme, Dr. Mike Ryan:
    “The conditions we see in Ukraine are the worst possible ingredients for the amplification and the spread of infectious disease. It doesn’t matter if it’s Covid, doesn’t matter if it’s polio, doesn’t matter if it’s measles, doesn’t matter if it’s cholera; Tragically, pestilence and infectious diseases has always been recognized as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse”.

    [This of course ties in with Moderna’s recent announcement (https://t.me/TheGreatResetTimes/14917) that they are working on 15 new mRNA jabs personally identified by the WHO]

    Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel:
    “What we’ve been thinking a lot about is: how do we get the world better ready to deal with the next outbreak or pandemic?”

    You have to punish speech like this or they will do it forever.

  64. boomie789 says:

    Lol CD. I actually just started noticing a couple grey hairs. Here’s to another trip around the sun. 🍻

  65. Boomie…it’s the new climate change…instead of every weather event being climate change now they’re going to invent pandemics.

  66. CD Marshall says:

    How much E is required to excite an electron in a solid? Low level IR can’t do it. Clearly SW radiation from the Sun can, but where does it top off?

  67. CD Marshall says:

    boomie789
    My grays began at 16. A girl on the school bus plucked one out of my head as a memento (or for a spell) 😁😳.

  68. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Richard wrote:
    “You talk about maximal entropy and thereafter of even more entropy.”

    ‘Maximally entropied’ is the maximum entropy that the universe will allow energy to become… we can force it to entropy even more because we have materials that allow us to capture that energy and use it. The net result is that the universe is nearer to heat death by some infinitesimally small fraction of a second… and if there is an energy barrier over which the universe must get to settle into a lower meta-stable energy state (one in which at least some elements no longer have the necessary ground-state quantum vacuum energy density feeding their bound electrons energy to sustain their orbital radius as they undergo angular acceleration and thus emit Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons… it’d most likely be in the order of highest ionization energy (thus lowest bound electron orbital radius), so He, Ne, F, Ar, N, Kr, O, H, Cl, Xe, Br, etc.), we’re hastening that eventuality.

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/12/01/first-professional-astronomer-detection-of-ufo-from-space-telescope/#comment-96596

    You can learn more about the concept from JL Naudin, whom I copied most of my knowledge from…
    http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm
    http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

    My design is nearly identical to his, except I improve upon his design by changing what he calls the “Primary Coils (Actuators)” so that rather than the coils being wound around the core as is traditionally done (and which takes more power, because it’s creating a magnetic field to ‘squeeze’ the magnetic flux in the core and thus increase core reluctance), I’ve created spirally-wound coils that sit inline with the core’s magnetic flux. The wire for these spirally-wound coils is ferromagnetic (52% Nickel, 48% Iron (NiFe), annealed such that it has slightly higher magnetic coercivity than the Metglas core, silver cladded, PTFE insulated, flatwire 4 mm wide by 0.125 mm thick), ordered from Shanghi Tankii Alloy (they’re the only one I could find who would squash it into flatwire, and who would do custom annealing of the wire).

  69. Nepal says:

    LolKooks, come on man, don’t bring perpetual motion machine claims here. This one is just like every other perpetual motion machine since centuries ago. It doesn’t work.

    The page you posted is from 2000. If it works, why don’t we have a video of a light bulb with no external power source yet? If it powers itself, why does it always have to be plugged into the wall?

    Perpetual motion machines are fake, always and forever.

  70. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Ah, it’s so much easier to just deny reality than it is to learn, isn’t it, Nepal? LOL

    Mine is plugged into the wall because I use a microinverter to feed power back to the grid, just as solar panels do.

    Study up on magnets and what sustains a bound electron at its orbital radius. I’ve discussed this before, Nepal, perhaps it just didn’t sink in for you.

    To wit:
    = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – =
    [1] https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.790

    [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf

    [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
    “We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”

    [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
    “The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”

    This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… an excited bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) in relation to its electric field will emit Larmor radiation)[5], which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.

    [5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9910019.pdf

    This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.
    = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – = – =

    But then, you deny 2LoT (and 1LoT… and 0 LoT… and Stefan’s Law… and pretty much everything we’ve discovered about how the universe works)… so it’s little wonder that you’re incapable of wrapping your mind around the reality that magnets concentrate the energy of the quantum vacuum in the form of virtual photons, allowing us to capture and use it (and as long as you don’t push it too hard, without causing the magnetic domains to unpin and flip, which weakens the magnet; and as long as your flux switching energetic cost is lower than the energy extracted).

  71. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    I’ll bet you didn’t know there’s been a scientific paper written on the topic. LOL

    Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics
    https://sci-hub.se/10.1023/A:1012085429802

    The reason the magnet doesn’t weaken over time (assuming you’re using a magnet with as high a magnetic hardness as you can find) is because the atoms are mechanically locked into position by the crystalline structure of the ferromagnetic material, and thus the bound electrons are locked into coherent orbitals.

    Why are the electrons in coherent orbitals? Because we put them into coherent orbitals when we put the unmagnetized (randomly arranged magnetic domains) ferromagnetic material into the magnetizer and aligned the magnetic domains via application of an external magnetic field.

    Now think about how a magnet affects space-time (ie: space and time), and you’ll understand why energy flows from/to the quantum vacuum to/from the magnet (as it always does… usually it just returns to the quantum vacuum immediately… we just capture it and put it to use before it does so).

    Yes, you can push it too hard, causing some of the magnetic domains to unpin and flip, which weakens the magnet. The nearer you get the bound electron orbitals to the nucleus, the easier it is for this to occur. The less magnetically hard your magnet(s) is(are), the easier it is for this to occur.

    So the bound electrons, with coherent orbitals, generate a coherent magnetic field. We alternately route this magnetic flux through one of two flux routes, whereupon we capture that magnetic flux and convert that energy into electrical form. The bound electrons descend in orbital radius because that energy’s not returning immediately to the magnet, we’ve essentially stolen some of the bound electron’s angular momentum. The bound electron orbitals get replenished via energy from the quantum vacuum.

    The energy we captured and converted to electrical form is used and returns to the quantum vacuum after use, slightly more entropied than when it came out of the quantum vacuum.

  72. Richard says:

    L@KKK,
    There is no thing like space-time. You are completely lost in space. Time is not a dimension.
    Stating that things come out of a vacuum is double talk.

  73. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Richard wrote:
    “There is no thing like space-time.”

    Really?

    For 3 spatial dimensions:
    (Δs)^2 = (Δct)^2 – (Δx)^2 – (Δy)^2 – (Δz)^2

    The constancy of the speed of light converts timelike units into spacelike units. sec * m/s = m, right? As you move through space, you necessarily move through time, as well, right? LOL

    General Relativity says you’re incorrect. Heck, even GPS satellites say you’re incorrect… satellites have to be within ~266 µsec of correct time in an ECI coordinate frame as compared to time at the surface of the planet to maintain the design 15 m accuracy… except the speed of the satellite slows time down and the distance higher up in Earth’s gravity well speeds time up for the satellite (as compared to the planet’s surface), both of which we must account for and correct because spacetime is a thing. Unless you’re going to argue that we don’t have to adjust the clocks on GPS satellites by +7 µsec and -45 µsec (ie: -38 µsec total) per day (an average, because gravity is not uniform, nor is the GPS satellite orbital altitude).

    T_1 = T_0/(√(1 − v^ 2 c^2)) …faster object, slower time

    T_2 = T_0/(√(1 − (2GM/c^2 R))) …farther from a gravity well, faster time

    T_1 = 7 µsec/day

    T_2 = 45 µsec/day

    T_2 − T_1 = -38 µsec/day

    If allowed to time-drift for a single day without correction, the GPS satellites would be off by 38000 nanosec, and given the speed of the GPS satellites, that means GPS would be off by ~15 cm / day (speed of satellite * 38 µsec/day)… because spacetime is a thing. LOL

    In actuality, the GPS clocks are corrected weekly, so the maximum error due to relativistic effects is 105 cm. If some catastrophe befell the planet such that the GPS satellites couldn’t have their time corrected, they’d be completely useless in a year or two for all but rough navigation… assuming the satellites all remained time-synced amongst themselves during that time. If they don’t, the whole thing becomes useless much quicker.

    Now, the US Naval Observatory (who came up with GPS to replace Loran) will readily admit they don’t use SR to calculate the GPS satellite time drift due to relativistic considerations… they don’t have to… the calculations using SR have already been done, so they can use a much simpler and less computationally-expensive correction to approximate the SR equation (applying a series of Lorentz transformations in infinitesimal steps in the Schwarzschild metric).

    Click to access a516975.pdf

  74. CD Marshall says:

    So Ukraine has biological facilities even though Fake News claimed they didn’t. I don’t get it, what country doesn’t these days?

  75. Nepal says:

    “ Mine is plugged into the wall because I use a microinverter to feed power back to the grid, just as solar panels do.”

    So your free energy device is plugged into wall, not because it is taking energy from the wall, but because it produce so much free energy that you have to give it back to the power company? You really expect anyone to believe that?

    If anyone had a free energy device, it would be easy as pie to have it run a lightbulb with no external power. Just like that, incontrovertible proof the device works, and you change the course of human history. But no one has done this with their free energy machine. Why? Because none of them work.

    None of the papers you link show evidence of a free energy machine. They are all about “stochastic electrodynamics,” which is a purely theoretical framework that predicts free energy machines. Okay, I’ll believe it when someone shows their free energy machine not plugged into the wall. Also I looked up the authors of papers, one is a Scientologist who brought Uri Geller into his lab and declared he was a real, spoon-bending psychic. Crazy town.

  76. CD Marshall says:

    I think Low-E machines would be more appropriate. Do you think this works? They do call it a COP>1 {coefficient of performance} Which is not a PM device, it is a low energy device if I am following the engineering dynamics correctly.

    Click to access COP_1_motot_generator.pdf

  77. Nepal says:

    Thanks CD. Caveat, usually COP refers to ratio of how much heat a heat pump can move around, versus how much energy has to be put in. Here it appears to refer to how much energy can be generated, versus how much energy is put in.

    The problem with such device is it can be used to make perpetual motion machine. Let’s say you put in 1 W of electricity, and it outputs 5 W of electricity. Well, now you can split that output and redirect 1 W back to the input. That’s enough for the machine to run itself, with 4 W left over. Now you can use those 4 W to run a light bulb forever. Perpetual motion machine.

    To be more direct, LolKooks said he was making, “ It’d be a battery that never needs charging and which never dies.” That’s definitely talking about a perpetual motion machine.

    Well again, I’ll believe it when I see a phone that never has to be charged.

  78. Richard says:

    L@KKK,
    I don’t know if this is the right place to discuss the errors in QM and RT, Joe should give his permission but since he started the discussion himself I wil continue with it. I respect your skilll of combining different parts of scientific knowledge but if there are faults in one of the parts the end result will be fallacious. I am not a native English speaker and what I meant to say is that time is not a new dimension perpendicular to the other three.
    The formula you wrote is not a new distance formula, it comes from the formula for the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The product ct is not a new dimensional coordinate and it is not perpendicular to the x, y and z axes, it also is not independant of the x,y and z coordinates.
    There is no 4 dimensional space-time continuum. You still have no clue what time is.LOL
    In Einstein’s paper “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” he states:
    “Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of ‘simultaneous’, or ‘synchronous’, and of ‘time’.”
    He also had no clue, since then not much has changed.

  79. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall I heard that most colleges have have what they are considering a biolab.

    The biolabs have levels and I think the one in Ukraine is supposed to be level 3. There is a level 3 biolab at LSU.

    https://lsu.edu/vetmed/research/bsl3.php

    “This facility (approximately 1,200 sq.ft.) is available for multiple faculty use and is managed by the LSU SVM Biosafety Committee and LSU Biosafety Office. Renovated in 2009, it is a fully equipped and self-contained laboratory suitable to conduct high containment infection experiments In vitro, with small animals (ABSL-3), and in arthropod vectors (ACL-3). The suite contains two class 11 B2 and one class 11 A2 biological safety cabinets, two glove boxes, two environmental chambers, two animal microisolator units with individual cage HEPA filtered supply and exhaust air, two dual-chamber C02 incubators, centrifuges (including an ultra-speed), bright field and inverted microscopes, water baths, refrigerators, freezers, balance, pH meter and computer. The laboratory is certified and registered with the CDC and USDA for select agent work. As such, all users must complete a biological safety and security training program and clear a background check before being authorized to use the facility.””

    This is what I heard on a radio station anyway. Maybe helps adds some useful context.

  80. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Richard wrote:
    “The formula you wrote is not a new distance formula, it comes from the formula for the hypotenuse of a right triangle.”

    It is literally called the spacetime interval equation. LOL

    Three-dimensional space defines the distance between two points (via the Pythagorean Theorem) thusly:
    (Δd)^2 = (Δx)^2 + (Δy)^2 + (Δz)^2

    You’ll note that doesn’t account for time, which the spacetime interval equation does thusly:
    (Δs)^2 = (cΔt)^2 – (Δx)^2 – (Δy)^2 – (Δz)^2

    If (Δs)^2 > 0, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning two events are separated by more time than space

    If (Δs)^2 < 0, the spacetime interval is spacelike, meaning two events are separated by more space than time.

    If (Δs)^2 = 0, the spacetime interval of two events on a worldline of something moving at c is zero. We know this is true because we know photons (traveling at c in vacuum) do not experience time and thus do not change with distance (sans external influence). Thus when we look out into space, we’re literally looking back in time.

    In fact, if one measures distance in light-seconds rather than meters, one can use:
    (Δs)^2 = (Δx)^2 + (Δy)^2 + (Δz)^2 – (Δt)^2

    Minkowskian 4-space is what SR and GR use. You can deny the formalism all you like, but there’s no other more-accurate means of calculating timeline events in Euclidean 3-space under relativistic conditions. As manifolds, Galilean and Minkowskian spacetime are identical… they only differ in what additional structure is defined on them, with Galilean spacetime using the Euclidean distance function and time interval (separately) along with inertial frames whose coordinates are related by Galilean transformations, while the Minkowski metric uses inertial frames whose coordinates are related by Poincaré transformations. The Poincaré group and Galilean group are analogous. All Galilean transformations preserve 3-dimensional Euclidean space while accounting for time (separately), whereas Poincaré transformations do the same while interweaving space and time.

    Richard wrote:
    “There is no 4 dimensional space-time continuum.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector#Four-vector_algebra

    Even Relativistic Mechanics (an extension of non-QM Classical Mechanics to relativistic cases) and Relativistic QM (the unification of SR and QM, such as Quantum Field Theory) use 4-vectors (3 spacelike, 1 timelike).

    And that’s because time and space are relative… now I wonder why Einstein called it “Relativity“? LOL

    If you’ve got a better system, let’s hear it. LOL

  81. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” – Hermann Minkowski, 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians (21 September 1908)

    The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

  82. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    ” That’s definitely talking about a perpetual motion machine.”

    Just because you can’t fathom where the energy is being extracted from doesn’t mean the energy doesn’t exist. A perpetuum mobile implies perpetual motion with no external energy source.

    Now Nepal is denying the quantum vacuum has a non-zero expectation value… he implicitly claims outer space is a ‘perfect’ vacuum! No invariant-mass matter, no energy, no vacuum fluctuations. Thus he must now deny empirical processes such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift and LIGO picking up gravity waves, all of which are predicated upon there being vacuum energy.

    Or he could, you know, educate himself. LOL

  83. Nepal says:

    “Just because you can’t fathom where the energy is being extracted from doesn’t mean the energy doesn’t exist. A perpetuum mobile implies perpetual motion with no external energy source.”

    There is no external energy source. If someone made this device which pulls infinite energy from the vacuum in 2000, as your link claims, they would have showed it can run a light bulb without being plugged in. That would have changed the whole world. But they didn’t do this. Why? Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, because the thing doesn’t work.

    The world has known perpetual motion machines are for suckers for centuries now:

    “Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists.”
    — Leonardo da Vinci, 1494

    Don’t be a sucker.

    Now you also try to say perpetual motion machine must exist because some theory, stochastic electrodynamics, predicts it. But a theory is only as good as the observations that support it. And so far, no observation of perpetual motion machine.

    Plus stochastic electrodynamics is a dumb theory. It rejects quantum electrodynamics and tries to replace it with all classical radiation. But it doesn’t predict things very accurately: QED is way, way more accurate. And it also predict outrageous things like free energy machines.

  84. Nepal says:

    Speaking of QED, I would love if Joe did another post on quantum mechanics. The last one I can find is from 2013, and judging from this post, there seems to be a lot more to say!

  85. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Again, just because you can’t fathom where the energy is being extracted from doesn’t mean that energy doesn’t exist.

    Nepal wrote:
    “Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, because the thing doesn’t work.”

    Really?

    And that’s using a core that’s far too large for purpose, which fritters a lot of the energy away in core losses; with the core not having any conductivity-gap (eddy current losses); which uses an incorrect wrapping methodology (you want single or dual-wrap with long coils, rather than short coils with many wraps… the outer wraps fritter energy away in eddy currents… eddy current losses go up exponentially with the number of wraps… by the third wrap, you’re frittering away as much as 40% of the energy for round wire); while using the incorrect type of wire (flat wire allows neater wrapping and lowers eddy current losses; ferromagnetic wire with slightly higher magnetic coercivity than the core allows one to hit the coil with a quick sharp voltage pulse, flip the magnetic domains in the wire, then cut off the current, whereas copper wire requires current the whole time you want to increase flux path reluctance) and an incorrect coil type (it uses actuator coils wrapped around the core, rather than spirally-wound coils in-line with the core’s magnetic flux, which I’ve already discussed).

    Oh look, another scientific paper you won’t understand. LOL

    THE LINK BETWEEN THE SACHS AND O(3) THEORIES OF ELECTRODYNAMICS
    M.W. Evans, ed., Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001
    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.2329&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    “Therefore, we conclude that electromagnetic energy density exists in curved spacetime under all conditions, and devices can be constructed to extract this energy density.”

    You know… chemist and physicist Myron Evans, 11440 citations…
    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UzKFt2QAAAAJ&hl=en

  86. Nepal says:

    That’s a very cool graph. I guess two possibilities. Option one, he invented free energy machine in 2000, and since then has done exactly nothing with it, not even powered a single light bulb without plugging into the wall. Doing so would bring him unbelievable fortune and solve most of humanity’s problems, but he decided not to do anything with it.

    Option two, he’s dumb and made some mistake in his measurements for that graph.

    I know where my money’s at.

  87. Nepal says:

    Another baloney paper.
    Myron Evan’s credentials are very impressive. But what do credentials mean, when everyone else with the same credentials disagrees?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Cartan–Evans_theory

    If we’re doing a credentials dick measuring contest, here’s what Nobel laureate Gerard T’hooft has to say about Evan’s theory:

    ‘ Several of the published contributions in this theory have been shown to be mathematically incorrect.[7][8][9][10] In response to these demonstrations, ‘t Hooft’s editorial note concludes, “Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhhov, the discussion of ECE theory in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.”’

  88. Nepal says:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703116

    “ Including also the results of an accompanying paper by Obukhov and the author, we show that Evans’ ansatz for electromagnetism is untenable beyond repair both from a geometrical as well as from a physical point of view. As a consequence, his unified theory is obsolete.”

    And as always: your theory predicts perpetual motion machines. I’ll believe the theory when you show even a single LED run by a machine with no power source.

  89. CD Marshall says:

    Agreed, I don’t even want to know how many and what levels Russia has.

  90. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie789

  91. CD Marshall says:

    This is now the “new” angle to AGW
    “however, even small increases in Methane and CO2 levels in the atmosphere CAUSES water to vaporize at a higher rate. Which heats up the atmosphere more and create even more water vapour. That’s why climate change causes a negative feedback loop.”

    Water vapor in the atmosphere is already vapor.

    Anyone want to add to this please be my guest.

  92. Zelator says:

    Ok Ive studied thousands of hours of info on the Khazarian Mafia ( The Namer Stealers). This is all tied up with what is going on in Ukraine with Russia etc.

    I know a lot of people don’t like Clif High, and I don’t really know why, as I dont really follow him,
    but he is spot on here:

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/4VKT1hm1DfLE/

    This video is the best compilation of information I believe to be true. If I didn’t
    believe any part of it I would say so. I wouldn’t intentionally put out information if I believed it to be false or suspicious.

    However as always use discernment, take what is useful and discard the rest.

    Be aware he mentions the Elohim (those who from the Heavens came) who descended on this planet. If his reference to off world beings offends you, then please do not watch, even though its a tiny portion and the rest is truly eye opening.

    Cheers Z

    p.s he mentions an article on Veterans Today website and I have included it here, for you, for extra depth in the field ok the KM.

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/08/21/most-controversial-document-in-internet-history-the-hidden-history-of-the-incredibly-evil-khazarian-mafia/

  93. ashemann says:

    Obviously you do get more water in the atmosphere in a warming world, as land based ice turns to liquid and then a percentage to vapour, which then delivers the new liquid to the cycles / weather system all around the globe hence a greening world, but oddly enough severe weather decreases with a warming world as the current data testifies too. [less cold fronts i dont know. less mixing of cold and warm air who knows ]. a warming world is a good thing, more moisture in the air is a good thing, unfortunately you cant have both at the same time cos one cancels the other out, as the sun cannot shine on the ice and the liquid to turn it to vapour through the vapour that is already there, if there is too much of it as clouds.

  94. Zelator says:

    Sorry to interrupt Gary. Just want to say that you may want to skip the first 6 mins of the above video I posted, as he waffles on a bit lol.

  95. CD Marshall says:

    The atmosphere is heated because the surface was first heated. The atmosphere doesn’t increase the T of the surface. Rate of atmospheric cooling does not increase the surface T. Everything that follows that assertion is a lie.

  96. Nepal says:

    Thanks boomie, that is useful context. There is no equivalence between Russia and Ukraine here. One is the invader killing civilians, the other is not.

  97. Richard says:

    L@KKK,
    If you write things like: “If (Δs)^2 > 0, the spacetime interval is timelike, meaning two events are separated by More Time Than Space” I think you are already completely lost, lost in space as I wrote before but now also lost in time. I wish you all the best, you cannot even explain what you are talking about. As I said you have the ability to talk about and connect differents parts of so called scientific knowledge but when there are errors in the parts the end result is also one big error.
    You don’ tknow what time is and think with Einstein that it is a clock. LOL

  98. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    First, JL Naudin is an experimenter, not a product developer. Second, he wouldn’t get any money for a closed-loop MEG… he doesn’t own the IP.

    That’s why I use mine for my own purposes until I can ascertain that the changes I’ve made represent enough of a change from prior art that it doesn’t impinge upon the IP holders’ prior art. Plus, there’s some issues between the MEG and the underlying prior art of Flynn, since the MEG uses the same underlying PPMT concept discovered by Flynn. Boeing Phantom Works publicly endorsed Flynn’s technology in 2006, it was described at one of the most prestigious scientific conferences in America: Space Technology and Applications International Forum (12-16 February 2006 in Albuquerque, NM), his company is a Registered Government Contractor, and one can purchase motors, generators, rotary or linear actuators and magnetic latches using that technology.

    Now, as a simple case, if one uses PPMT to attract a piece of metal larger than one could have attracted with an electromagnet alone, has one achieved COP>1 by doing more work than one put in to the process? When one switches the coils such that that larger piece of metal then falls away from the PPMT assembly with nearly no (or no) force required to separate it, what then? One must conclude that the permanent magnets did work, must one not? And if they did work, they must be receiving energy from somewhere, no? Where’s the energy to sustain a permanent magnet’s bound electron orbital radius as they throw out virtual photons (the force carriers of the magnetic field) coming from, Nepal? LOL

    Just as in PPMT, we’re using a small amount of current to steer a magnetic flux larger than what that current could produce alone. It is the magnetic flux doing the work to generate the electricity, and it comes from a permanent magnet, so we don’t pay for producing it (as one would if that magnetic flux were generated via coils).

    Do you also deny that heat pumps are COP > 1, Nepal? Per Carnot’s Theorem, the maximum theoretical COP of a heat pump would be 36 (EER 122.76) for 15F temperature differential. LOL

    “That 12.2 EER (3.577 COP) minimum the federal government imposed upon heat pumps is perpetual moooooshunnnn!” – Nepal, most likely. LOL

    Nepal wrote:
    “But what do credentials mean, when everyone else with the same credentials disagrees?”

    He says, completely neglecting the refutation proffered by Evans et. al., and the fact that ECE isn’t what we’re talking about here, and the fact that ECE has evolved into ECE2… but then, denial of reality is so much easier than actually educating yourself, right, Nepal? LOL

    I read a “rebuttal” of the MEG which claimed that steady-state magnetic fields cannot induce a current flow, and that the permanent magnet did nothing… the ‘genius’ author didn’t take into account that we’re alternating that steady-state magnetic flux from a permanent magnet through two flux paths, making it not-steady-state in each flux path. LOL

    In fact, it’s superior to a traditional transformer… we don’t need the coils to generate the magnetic flux, just to steer it, and because the flux only travels in one direction through each flux path, there’s less magnetic hysteresis and thus lower core losses. As long as your flux-switching energetic costs, core losses and eddy current losses are lower than the energy extracted, it’s COP>1.

    Think about how magnets work… two magnets facing like-pole to like-pole (N to N, or S to S) generate a region of higher energy density, which translates into a force which attempts to move the magnets to minimize the energy in the field. Likewise, two magnets facing opposite-pole to opposite-pole (N to S)… when you pull them apart, you’re adding energy to the field by applying a force to the magnets. When you release the magnets and allow them to move back together, that force you applied is used to move the magnets together to minimize the energy in the field.

    Now, what we’re doing in removing energy from the field (converting it to electrical form) via the motionless electrical generator is that we’re taking the field energy density below that minimum which the magnets naturally settle out to. Naturally, this affects the progenitors of that field… the bound electrons in the ferromagnetic material. They descend a bit in their orbital radius because we’ve stolen some of their angular momentum… we’ve induced an artificial Lamb shift. They are replenished by energy from the quantum vacuum as discussed prior.

    Another means of inducing an artificial Lamb shift (Casimir-Lamb shift) is by blowing a noble gas through a plethora of Casimir cavities… the resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes which sustain the bound electron orbital radius are blocked by the cavities, the bound electrons of the noble gas descend in their orbital radius, giving off photons in the process (which can be captured and put to use). Then, when the noble gas exits the cavity, the quantum vacuum field energy density flows to the bound electron to reestablish the usual bound electron orbital radius. The energy is extracted locally and replenished globally.

    This has been empirically observed in laboratory settings:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335432514_On_Extracting_Energy_from_the_Quantum_Vacuum

    Click to access Haisch_abstractSSE10.pdf

    https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1875389212024959?token=8069DFB93ADC5A62E946ABCB7B7649E8ABCBB8C1E047A4FC0C5E774CE6F1F868B8E9A00567784946B06118E23783629C&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20220320183534

    And that’s why we have this:

    [1] https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.790

    [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf

    [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
    “We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”

    [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
    “The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”

  99. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    “I’ll believe the theory when you show even a single LED run by a machine with no power source.”

    That’s an impossibility, and you know it. Every action requires an impetus, after all.

    How about an LED that puts out more light than the energy input to it (COP 2.3), which cools its surroundings by absorbing energy from the surroundings (electroluminescent cooling)?

    https://sci-hub.se/https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403

    Now what will you do, Nepal? Deny reality again? Claim the LED is “perpetual moooooshunnnn!”? LOL

  100. Nepal says:

    “ First, JL Naudin is an experimenter, not a product developer. Second, he wouldn’t get any money for a closed-loop MEG… he doesn’t own the IP.”

    Are you really this gullible? This guy claims to have made free energy, which would be the secret to a golden age for humanity. And he sits on it for 20+ years because… of a single prior patent? Really?

    “[a light run by a machine with no external power source] an impossibility, and you know it.“

    I do know it. That’s why I found it very silly when you said you were building “a battery that never needs charging and which never dies.”

    “ Do you also deny that heat pumps are COP > 1, Nepal?”

    No. That’s why I already discussed that this is a non-standard use of the words “coefficient of performance.” Usually that refers to how much heat can be moved from place to place by a heat pump (divided by input work). Here it refers to how much electrical energy can be generated out of thin air (divided by input work). A heat pump can have COP>1. A generator cannot output more electrical energy than is put in. To do so would allow perpetual motion machine, by hooking the output up to the input.

    You can keep clinging to made up theories that promise perpetual motion if you want. Generations and generations of fools have done the same. If you want to waste your time being the next fool, be my guest.

  101. Nepal says:

    But don’t lie about it on here. Unless you have actually good evidence (I.e. power generation where it isn’t PLUGGED INTO THE FRICKIN WALL, lol), don’t waste everyone’s time with the 500000th claim of a perpetual motion machine.

  102. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Again, it’s not a perpetuum mobile, which implies operation with no external source of power… simply because you can’t fathom where the energy comes from due to your denial of reality doesn’t mean that energy doesn’t exist.

    Nepal wrote:
    “Usually that refers to how much heat can be moved from place to place by a heat pump (divided by input work).”

    Just because it’s been used to describe the performance of a Carnot-cycle (reverse or not) machine (Carnot Coefficient of Performance) doesn’t preclude it being used in its original meaning. It applies across fields.

    One calculates the coefficient of performance by dividing how much energy a system produces by the amount of energy one inputs into the system (no matter the system).

    Especially egregious bit of pedantry, Nepal, especially given that I’ve already demonstrated that there is a direct analogy between thermodynamics (of which the Carnot cycle is a part) and electrical theory (which you apparently also cannot fathom). In future, do try harder. LOL

  103. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Just as Carnot Coefficient of Performance is used to denote that a heat pump extracts energy from the environment, so too does the MEG. So the use of ‘COP’ as regards the MEG is entirely apropos.

    The left-hand side of that graphic isn’t mine, I’ve merely adapted it to explicate a point.

    And again, given that I’ve already amply demonstrated the direct analogy between thermodynamics and electrical theory, how you cannot fathom how this works can only be chalked up to your having been inculcated with groupthink from birth. LOL

    https://tinyurl.com/yd88x6du
    How, oh how, are we pulling current from ground to charge capacitors at a rate faster than the current source can provide?! According to Nepal, it’s “perpetual moooooshunnnn!“. LOL

  104. Nepal says:

    “ Just as Carnot Coefficient of Performance is used to denote that a heat pump extracts energy from the environment, so too does the MEG. So the use of ‘COP’ as regards the MEG is entirely apropos.”

    Not the same at all. A heat pump takes in work/electricity, plus heat from a cold reservoir, and outputs heat to a hot reservoir. The output is NOT electricity, it is heat. That is why coefficient of performance can be greater than 1.

    The MEG claims to output electricity, not heat, so it is not a heat pump. So should not use coefficient of performance.

    More importantly, the heat pump inputs energy from a cold reservoir. The MEG inputs energy from a fairy tale and a wish. You pretend that there is a magical source of infinite free energy in the very air around us. You call this the quantum vacuum, and say we can take as much energy as we want from it, free energy everywhere for all!

    That would be very nice, but we cannot take energy from the quantum vacuum. There is no evidence that this is possible, except Naudin’s one graph which is almost certainly a dummy making a mistake. Otherwise he would have shown better evidence, like a useful machine that doesn’t have to be plugged into a wall.

    The theory of stochastic electrodynamics thinks we can take energy from the vacuum. But we don’t believe in theories until there is experimental evidence, and there is no experimental evidence for such free energy. Quantum electrodynamics is a much better theory than stochastic electrodynamics, and it says we cannot take energy from vacuum.

  105. CD Marshall says:

    This might come in handy for someone.
    https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/data-transfer

  106. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    “The output is NOT electricity, it is heat.”

    Pedantism is what you do best, Nepal… energy is energy, no matter the form. LOL

    Now you’re claiming the quantum vacuum is “a fairy tale and a wish”…

    Oh look… direct sampling of the quantum vacuum EM field fluctuations:
    https://sci-hub.se/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac9788
    “Here, we report direct detection of the vacuum fluctuations of electromagnetic radiation in free space.”

    Now don’t you feel ever so silly for your lifelong denials of reality, Nepal? LOL

  107. Nepal says:

    “ Pedantism is what you do best, Nepal… energy is energy, no matter the form. LOL”

    No, no, no. Absolutely not. The laws of thermodynamics are all about how heat and work cannot always be converted into each other. (Work includes electricity).

    For example, any old piece of copper at room temperature contains many thousands of Joules of thermal energy. If all energy were the same, you could just hook that block of copper up to your phone, and the thermal energy would charge the battery. But this expressly forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.

    ‘Now you’re claiming the quantum vacuum is “a fairy tale and a wish”…

    Oh look… direct sampling of the quantum vacuum EM field fluctuations:’

    The quantum vacuum is very real. Extracting infinite free energy from it is a fairy tale, just like every other perpetual motion machine.

  108. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Heat is energy in motion, by definition. Free energy is the definition of the ability to do work. Now you’re denying the fundamental physical laws again, while citing the fundamental physical laws as supportive of your insane take on reality! What next, Nepal? Will you yet again redefine commonly-held and long-known definitions to fit your insane take on reality? LOL

    Nepal wrote:
    “The quantum vacuum is very real.”

    Nicely backpedaled. LOL

    Nepal wrote:
    “Extracting infinite free energy from it is a fairy tale, just like every other perpetual motion machine.”

    Unless, as I’ve explicated (and as empirically observed in a laboratory in the case of Casimir cavities and in the real-world in the case of the MEG), one can either create an artificially-lower energy state than the ground state (as in a Casimir cavity via the Casimir-Lamb shift) or one can induce a bound electron’s orbital to descend below its ground state by stealing bound electron angular momentum (as in a MEG via induced Lamb shift)… 2LoT, you know (which you’ve repeatedly denied)… energy flows from a higher to a lower energy density. LOL

  109. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    An exercise for the reader is to take any unit volume of quantum vacuum… the random distribution of quantum vacuum wavemodes means isotropic energy distribution. By itself it can do no work (except upon a region of even lower energy density, such as in a Casimir cavity… or at the ever-expanding edge of the universe, which is what drives the expansion).

    Now add a magnet. Obviously magnetism is mediated via virtual photons, and photons are the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM force, and magnets have a pretty powerful effect upon macroscopic material, and magnets can indeed do work (as the Flynn PPMT example above shows… the PPMT assembly does work to attract a larger piece of metal than the current through the coils could attract alone (in fact, once the PPMT assembly is configured the way you want, you can turn off the current to the coils before ever attracting that piece of metal), and when those coils are switched to reroute the flux, that larger piece of metal falls away from the PPMT assembly with little or no force required… work was definitely done by the magnets).

    Why? Because the energy received from the quantum vacuum to sustain the bound electrons of the ferromagnetic material is channeled, collimated, coherent, whatever term you choose. Energy flows from the quantum vacuum to replenish the bound electron orbital radius as the bound electron emits Larmor radiation (a point charge undergoing angular acceleration in relation to its electric field will emit (real or virtual, depending upon the situation) photons. That virtual photon flux is coherent. It is not randomly distributed as the quantum vacuum is. The crystalline structure of the ferromagnetic material locks the molecules into a certain configuration which means all the bound electron orbitals are parallel or anti-parallel (approximately half each, which is why no matter how many times you cut a magnet, you’ll always have a N and S pole… the only difference between the poles being the helicity of the virtual photons).

    And that’s because magnets are a form of strange attractor… a chaotic dissipative system which is always attempting but never able to reach its true ground state (because the crystalline structure of the ferromagnetic material mechanically locks the molecules into set positions and thus the bound electrons into set orbital directions).

    A strange attractor:

    A side view of the quantum vortex field of a dipole magnet:

    Click to access Moon_Holmes_Chaos_1979.pdf

    The above utterly destroys Nepal’s take on reality… he must now deny all we know about how the universe works in order to cling to his archaic knowledge-base and his withering pride. LOL

  110. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    The permanent magnet being a form of strange attractor and the effects of magnetism upon space-time means the permanent magnet simultaneously (from our reference frame) experiences both an energy deficit and energy surplus, it pulls virtual photons in from and expels virtual photons to the quantum vacuum (on both pole faces… pulling virtual photons into the center of one pole face, the virtual photons go through the bulk of the magnet and are expelled out the other pole face at the pole perimeter… the only difference between N and S pole being virtual photon helicity). And it is locked into that (temporal) disparity by dint of our putting the unmagnetized (random domain directions) ferromagnetic material into a magnetizer and forcing the domains into orientation. They are locked there mechanically due to the crystalline structure of the ferromagnetic material, and thus the permanent magnet can never reach its true ground state.

    Real time observation of a stationary magneton
    EMMANOUIL MARKOULAKIS*, ANTONIOS KONSTANTARAS, JOHN CHATZAKIS, RAJAN IYER,
    EMMANUEL ANTONIDAKIS
    Hellenic Mediterranean University formerly Technological Educational Institute of Crete, Department of Electronics Engineering, Computer Technology Informatics & Electronic Devices Laboratory, Romanou 3, Chania, 73133, Greece

    Click to access 1911.05735.pdf

    “Therefore an astonishing novel observation has been made that the Quantum Magnetic Field of the Magnet-Magneton (QFM) consists of a dipole vortex shaped magnetic flux geometrical pattern responsible for creating the classical macroscopic N-S field of magnetism as a tension field between the two polar quantum flux vortices.”

    I’ve actually built my own ferrohydrodynamic lens (aka quantum magnetic optic device)… it’s easy to do. You coat a (preferably optical-quality) lens with SPION (superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles) in a thin oil suspension, then sandwich that with another lens, seal the edge with clear sealant, then wrap a multi-color LED light source around the edge. You can purchase them, as well.

  111. Nepal says:

    “ Will you yet again redefine commonly-held and long-known definitions to fit your insane take on reality? LOL”

    Just checking… my “insane take on reality” is that you can’t pull infinite electrical energy out of thin air?

    All you do is put a fresh coat of paint on perpetual motion machines. No matter how many paragraphs you write about your wacko version of quantum mechanics, your perpetual motion machine will never work. Even the papers you link don’t believe their own results are convincing. Here is the very end from one paper:

    “Therefore the fact that the measured power was far below that expected from ZP energy-induced radiation does not disqualify that as a possible source for the observed radiation… At this point it appears that ZP energy extraction from the quantum vacuum remains a possible explanation for the observed radiation. More experimental work will be required to determine if this is the correct explanation“

    Not exactly a slam dunk is it?

    People have dreamed about perpetual motion machines for centuries now, and it’s always a fool’s errand. You know who still can’t get that through their heads? Kooks

  112. Nepal says:

    Anyway, I think this argument has gone on long enough and probably bored everyone. Sorry everyone. My stance is that there is a long history of perpetual motion machines being frauds, the two papers claiming to have seen this newest “vacuum energy” perpetual motion machine seem to also be frauds, and all the new theories made up to try to justify this newest perpetual motion machine have not shown any reason they should be believed. If someone had made a real infinite energy machine, the consequences would be enormous, not some shoddy looking graph. I close with that.

  113. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Nepal wrote:
    “Just checking… my “insane take on reality” is that you can’t pull infinite electrical energy out of thin air?”

    It’s not “out of thin air”, as I’ve explained… your inability to figure out how reality works is a personal failing on your own part, something you’ll have to rectify on your own. LOL

    I’ve presented a plethora of standard physics and BSM physics, along with the data, to show that you are incorrect on your take on reality… you’ve not explained exactly where that energy goes once it’s entropied to the point of subsuming into the background, nor have you explained your 2LoT violation… you imply that creating an artificially-lower ground state and thereby blocking resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes sustaining bound electron orbital radius (as in a Casimir cavity) or inducing the bound electron to go below its ground-state orbital (by stealing its angular momentum as in the MEG) will not result in an energy flow from the quantum vacuum to the bound electron… and that’s in direct contradiction to 2LoT.

    But then, you’ve denied 2LoT before. You know who does that? Kooks. LOL

    Nepal wrote:
    “Even the papers you link don’t believe their own results are convincing.”

    He says, while completely neglecting to mention that they also believe their lower-than-expected measured power to be due to the inconsistent size of cavity space for the material they used as Casimir cavities (and therefore inconsistent blocking of resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes sustaining the bound electron orbital radius), and a low operating pressure leading to longer mean free path length (and thus a reduced chance of emission). The very least you could do is to be intellectually honest, Nepal. LOL

    I’ll close with that which you cannot refute… if you could have, you would have. You didn’t because you cannot. LOL

    [1] https://sci-hub.se/10.1103/physrevd.11.790

    [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf

    [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
    “We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”

    [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
    “The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”

    This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… an excited bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) in relation to its electric field will emit Larmor radiation)[5], which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.

    [5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9910019.pdf

    This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.

  114. CD Marshall says:

    Nepal,
    I’m having a hard time believing you are a 16 year old kid 🙄. If true you should have already been placed into a college or at least offered the opportunity. Well use to be like that anyway, now brilliance is passed up by gender studies and social justice.

  115. Nepal says:

    Well I have been doing research for >1 years now at university, but I am still attending high school. It is very helpful that my dad is a professor to find this opportunity… even though he studies climate “science”… don’t worry I am not wasting my time on that.

  116. Nepal says:

    Well I do research at university for >1 year now, but I am still attending high school. It is very helpful that my dad is a professor to find this opportunity… even though he studied climate science… don’t worry I don’t waste my time on that.

  117. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie,
    Do you happen to have a link to the Rittenhouse video where the criminals were shown threatening him before he shot them? The video has been suppressed on all Woke media. Come to think of it the video where the reporters were being shot at in Ukraine was also removed from YT.

  118. Nepal and Kooks are both incredibly impressive.

    And yes please stop the squabble now.

    Here’s my position: demonstrate it. Not with words, but real actual scientific experimental demonstration with detailed instructions for anyone to reproduce. This is something RGHE climate alarmists can’t do for example.

  119. boomie789 says:

    From what I remember just Rosenbaum is on video threatening Rittenhouses life.

    https://odysee.com/@demonetized_memes:6/tc21:e

    https://odysee.com/KyleRittenhouseTrialClip110421:c6d04c18e8eefea52c65483d648f906390f81849

    https://odysee.com/@vsidious:6/RittenhouseTrialClipKyleThreatenedByRosenbaum11042021:c

    https://odysee.com/@BASEDLogic:a/joseph-rosenbaum-begging,-shoot-me-niqqa:8

    I think there was also an incident on tape where Rittenhouse put out a dumpster fire that Rosenbaum helped start, or at least wanted to keep going, this is what first got Rosenbaum frustrated with Rittenhouse.

  120. boomie789 says:

    The other two guys didn’t really threaten before. Skateboard guy was shot in the chest for hitting him and grabbing his rifle. The guy who drew down on him had his arm blown off.

    When Rittenhouse was running towards the police line EVERYBODY was yelling something like “Hey he just killed somebody stop him!”.

  121. boomie789 says:

    I didn’t even didn’t a video of Rosenbaum threatening his life. Just that famous “SHOOT ME NIBBA” in the forth link.

    The other videos are court testimony.

  122. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie,
    Sounds like you followed it all so under gun laws do you think he was justified? You know enough to answer. I never asked my brother what he thought of it, but as a civilian his advice is always avoid that situation if you can, personally he would have told the guy to get out of there and cut his losses. Pick your battles. A state supported riot is a losing battle unless you are the National Guard.

    I not saying he did anything wrong in defending himself but why put yourself in that position if you can avoid it? At that point it is time to leave that place forever.

  123. boomie789 says:

    Well, there is the strictly legal lens then the more in hindsight and nuanced lens.

    If I were to advocate for Rittenhouse his character was in line with his actions. His dad was a cop. He had an interest in law enforcement and emergency services. He had some training in those fields. It’s one of the 2 neighborhoods he lives in.

    “But he’s not a cop he’s just a kid”

    He has just as much right to there as Rosenbaum and all those other rioters.

    But as to your first question, everything he did was legally justified. As to did he do the absolute best timeline possible. Probably not. I find it hard to knock him. Up until he said he supports BLM and went talk on the MSM too much anyway.

  124. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    CD Marshall wrote:
    “I’m having a hard time believing you are a 16 year old kid”

    That’s because he’s likely not… I suspect he’s the warmist kook ‘evenminded’… same arguments, same attacks against the same people, same denial of the fundamental physical laws, just toned down so he doesn’t get booted from his one thousandth comments section. LOL

  125. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah, it’s one of those situations you hope you never get into. I had several break in attempts from kids in the past never thought about shooting them. Scaring the hell out of them yes, actually shooting them, no.

    If they were armed adults sure that’d be different. Then you need to be aware of the laws in your state which the cops actually went over with me in detail lol. It’s different for a guy and a female though. Like my wife, I tell her do not hesitate to shoot if they break in, for a female (most of them anyway) can be easily overpowered and quickly.

    One cop said he tells his wife the same thing. They break in you shoot. Period.

    My brother on the other hand could take them out in many ways and shoot exactly where he intends to, I’m not that good. He also owns a real .223 full auto I would not want to be the idiot who broke into his home. He always carries a Glock (9mm/45/40S&W) depending on mood.

  126. CD Marshall says:

    The full auto is 100% legal BTW, just to be clear.

  127. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    The vacuum energy density is proportional to the inverse of the fourth power of the dimensional distance of the space under consideration:

    u = 1/d^2

    … and thus the corresponding vacuum energy is automatically regularized to (near) zero value for an infinitely large free space (it asymptotically approaches zero). That is the renormalization lacking in QFT, the reason that theory arrives at infinite vacuum energy density (the Vacuum Catastrophe), which considers an infinite number of harmonic oscillators (W = (1/2 Σκσ ħωκ → ∞). They renormalize by only considering the energy difference of each quantum vacuum wavemode relative to the vacuum state.

    Although assigning physical parameters to virtual particles is an unknown (because virtual particle lifetime is so short that they are unmeasurable by us), the QFT Vacuum Catastrophe comes about because of the attribution of frequency ω and summing over every frequency.

    The uncertainties in energy and lifetime (energy-time uncertainty relation) of detectable particles satisfy the relation: ΔEΔτ ≥ ħ/2

    Conversely, virtual particle energy and lifetime satisfy the relation: Eτ(virtual max) ≈ α ħ/2, where α is a value generally < 1.

    Now, as to an empirical example of extraction of energy from the quantum vacuum, something which has been peer-reviewed, something done by a reputable institution, something which is published…

    We take as an example the extraction and concretization of virtual photons from the quantum vacuum to real photons via Dynamical Casimir Effect, performed by Chalmers University.

    They input a certain amount of energy. That energy extracted energy from the quantum vacuum by concretizing virtual photons. The energy output of the entire process was thus higher than the energy input.

    https://www.chalmers.se/en/research/strong/nano/news/Pages/Chalmers-scientists-create-light-from-vacuum.aspx

    This is analogous to the image I used prior:

    The SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) ‘mirror’ transfers some of its kinetic energy to virtual photons, concretizing them into pairs of real photons. Obviously:

    KE_mirror + E_concretized virtual photon > KE_mirror

    IOW, E_out > E_in… energy from the vacuum! LOL

    https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/nature10561

  128. boomie789 says:

    [video src="https://files.catbox.moe/aw2mlf.mp4" /]

    ^Hologram technology demonstration

  129. boomie789 says:

    (https://files.catbox.moe/aw2mlf.mp4)

    Sorry. Make the link a little easier.

  130. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Mheh… I fudged the first equation… you know what I mean from the textual description.

  131. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    I ditched Google, Bing and Yahoo long ago for their inherent leftist bias. I’d been using DuckDuckGo, but since DuckDuckGo announced that they’re jumping on the censorship bandwagon in their censorship of most things Russian due to the Russia-Ukraine war, I decided to cast about for a new search engine… I don’t want groomed results, that implies that someone else is deciding for me what I should see, what I should learn, what I should believe. I want to see all sides of an issue and decide for myself.

    I tried Brave search, but they seem to be more centered around results for shopping, and they don’t output a lot of results, so you can’t ‘dig deep’ to find the web pages at the tail-end of a search request that proffer alternative views such that you can form your own opinion on a topic by looking at all viewpoints.

    Enter Qwant. They have an interface similar to Google’s, without the tracking and privacy invasion.

    Check it out. If you decide to use it, for SRWare Iron, Google Chrome and other variants:

    Under Settings > Appearance > Show Home button:
    https://www.qwant.com/?hc=0&b=1&s=0&theme=-1&vt=0&l=en&locale=en_US

    Under Settings > Search Engine > Manage Search Engines:
    Search Engine: Qwant (Default)
    Keyword: Qwant
    URL with %s in place of query: https://www.qwant.com?q=%s

  132. Qwant was what I settled on too.

    Anyway, Kooks and Nepal, we’ll appreciate you in the new world and the school of ontological mathematics.

  133. Nepal says:

    Good tip LolKooks.

    “ Anyway, Kooks and Nepal, we’ll appreciate you in the new world and the school of ontological mathematics.”

    I hope you mean literally lol, you should have a whole school with classes

  134. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    “The quantum vacuum does not provide the bound electron any energy! It can’t! It’s the ground state, that energy can’t be used for anything!”, some may say.

    Really? Let’s look at the hydrogen atom.

    According to Bohr’s atomic model, the electron orbits about the nucleus with the Coulomb force balanced by centripetal force.

    F ⇒ (e^2 / (4 π ε_0 r^2)) = m_e v^2 / r

    From Bohr’s postulates, the electron orbitals are quantized, so we know the speed of the bound electron and the radius of its orbital:

    v = (n ∙ ħ) / (m_e ∙ r)

    r = n^2 ∙ (4 π ε_0 ∙ ħ^2) / (m_e ∙ e^2)

    And from that, we can derive the frequency of the bound electron orbital in quantum number n=1:

    f = v / (2 π r) = ((n ∙ ħ) / (m_e ∙ r)) / ((2 π ∙ n^2) ∙ ((4 π ε_0 ∙ ħ^2)/ m_e ∙ e^2)) = (m_e ∙ e^4) / (32 π^3 ∙ ε_0^2 ∙ ħ^3 ∙ n^3) = 6579683.94235111 GHz

    Now, if we calculate the energy of the resonant quantum vacuum wavemode:

    W = h ∙ f = 6.6260693e-34 Js ∙ 657968394235111 s-1 = 27.21485579967232 eV

    What’s the energy differential between the hydrogen’s ground-state bound electron and a free electron far from any proton (ie: the ionization energy)? 13.6 eV

    To be more exact, it’s: 27.21485579967232 eV / 2 = 13.60742789983616 eV.

    Why half?
    E_n = E_kin + E_pot = 1/2 E_Pot
    E_Pot = 2 * E_n when n=1

    And with that, we prove that it is the resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes which feed energy to the bound electron to sustain it at its usual orbital radius.

    It stands to reason, then, that if we induce a lower-than-ground state quantum vacuum energy density and thus block those resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes (as in a Casimir cavity), the bound electron will descend in orbital radius, giving off a photon. Once the bound electron exits the lower-than-ground state quantum vacuum energy density, the resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes will reestablish the usual orbital radius.

    It also stands to reason that if we steal the bound electron’s angular momentum, causing it to descend in orbital radius, the resonant quantum vacuum wavemodes will supply energy to reestablish the usual orbital radius, all in full accord with 2LoT and every other fundamental physical law.

  135. Joseph E Postma says:

    I like the theory. I like that approach. There is also a way to develop this approach and demonstrate a relationship between the strength of gravity and the centripetal acceleration of the electron…or something along those lines…but I forget the details now. But it all reduces to a classical approach of explaining gravity, etc. It was quite nice…wish I could have the paper that showed how to do it come back up. Kooks you may know how to do it already. I remember it was something about the centripetal acceleration of the electron, and its speed, etc., which connected nicely to gravity in some way. Well…it must be something then along the lines of calculating the gravitational force between the electron and proton. Anyway…I forget what it all was.

  136. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    “But the published ionization energy of hydrogen is 13.5984 eV!”, some may exclaim.

    Yes, there are inaccuracies due to thermal energy when measuring a transition from n = 1 → n = ∞, unless it’s done as near to absolute zero as possible.

    We can roughly ascertain at what temperature they did the measurements:

    13.60742789983616 – 13.5984 = 0.00898789983616 eV

    That corresponds to a 137.945682215µ photon, with a Wien Peak Displacement temperature of 21.007 K.

    I say “roughly ascertain” because of rounding errors in my calculations… I could do it without rounding, but you get the point.

  137. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Mheh… error in transcription from calculator to text:

    6579683.94235111 GHz should be 6579683.942351511 GHz. It doesn’t affect the end result, which I transcribed correctly.

  138. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    The corresponds to 27.2113863 eV, giving 13.60569315 eV as the calculated ionization energy, meaning it was only 0.00729315 eV off from the published number, which corresponds to a 170.001µm photon, with a Wien Peak Displacement Temperature of 17.047 K.

  139. Zelator says:

    Hi LoLKKK. I have been using Qwant and Duck Duck go for quite a while now. The results are astounding compared to the likes of Google, Bing etc as you said.

    Also like you, I have noticed recently that Duck Duck Go has changed its algorithm and is not as useful as it was a month or so ago.

    I was using the Brave Browser with the Qwant Search function and the Dissenter Browser (DAB) for Duck Duck Go Search engine.

    However I will now try SRWare Iron which is a Chromium-based web browser as you suggested.
    It’s supposedly the most secure browser in the world. The Iron browser is based on the open-source project from Google Chrome. Will set it up with the Qwant Search functionality as you indicated.

    I like to have a least a couple of reliable search engines at hand, and as I have used Duck Duck Go less and less recently, I have been trying out Yandex and phasing out DDG.

    Incidentally Google search is still useful for non controvertial stuff like every day data and stats, sports, entertainment, useless information lol, but obviously the algorithm and privacy side of it is rubbish.

    Thanks for the info.

    Cheers Z

  140. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    I was astonished at my first search on Qwant… it was spot-on for what I was searching for, reminiscent of the Google of old.

    Google provided a lot of tangentially-related results for the same search, but none of what I was searching for.

    DuckDuckGo provided a few tangentially-related results for the same search, and a lot of unrelated results.

    I think it was around 2006 or so, Google started going bad. I remember they changed their ranking algorithm to lower the rank of websites which were just swapping links to boost their PageRank, and they started giving a boost to pages which were swapping content, not links. And they started really punishing sites using the older method of just including keywords.

    Google is famously closed-mouthed about what changes they’ve made, to prevent gaming their search results. I was the one who figured out what they were doing… I was programming sites for some heavy-hitter investors at the time, and their PageRank dropped precipitously after Google’s algorithm change. I had them back in the top 5 within a couple weeks.

    So we went from pages with a bunch of (often hidden) relevant keywords, to pages with a list of (often hidden) links, to often machine-generated garbage pages which tricked Google’s algorithm into ranking that site higher.

    Once Google figured out how to rank websites based upon peer-consensus (ie: how much content you were sharing with other sites), they figured out that they could manipulate the content of that consensus… and their search results have gone downhill ever since, accelerating once the cancer of woketardism took hold.

  141. Zelator says:

    Yes its a shame as Google was the top dog at the time, better than Alta Vista and Yahoo by miles.
    I used to do SEO for my websites back in the day when we had to write the html ourselves lol.

    Could have done with knowing you back in those days as Key Word Stuffing and even how your url was written mattered. Spent hours writing articles for ezines to get traffic , to get ranked top in Google, and as you said they switched the algorithm overnight and all the work went down the pan.

    Those were the days lol. The early days of internet when ebay was nothing but an auction site and Amazon sold books.

    Do you remember an American guy called Bill Meyers from Arkansas? He was the leader in promoting Ebay and one of the first people to produce an “ebook”. I learned most of my stuff from him. He came over to Wembley in London and introduced the “Internet” to the British. He gave me a copy of his Unfair Advantage Letter book, in a big thick folder, and its still useful today. He was a protege of Gary Halbert.

  142. CD Marshall says:

    Joe,
    Love this guy never seen anything like him, he beats Mann, hands down!
    Gerald Kutney – a friend of #ClimateBrawl 🌎🌍🌏
    @GeraldKutney
    ·
    5m
    Replying to
    @MarshallCd

    I have been watching your endless rants … about physics … which you think you know more than the climate scientists … psst … come here … I will let you in on a secret … you don’t.

    #ClimateBrawl #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency

  143. CD Marshall says:

    So I responded…
    “You are cordially invited to debate a physicist or find someone who actually IS a climate scientist to replace you. Open invite.”

  144. ashemann says:

    Kutney says he doesn’t understand the science, but he believes in it and the scientists behind it.

    Therein demonstrating his belief is actually faith, and he sees himself as a preacher of his faith and belief’s.

    Not quite a televangelist , but a twitevangelist.

  145. Totally a new religion.

    “Trust the Church!”

    “Listen to the priests!”

    I bet they pulled that phrase straight outta some texts from the medieval age.

  146. CD Marshall says:

    Kutney is hilarious.

  147. CD Marshall says:

    So I’m sure you’ve seen the Heat Wave over the Arctic and the North Pole on March 18th-21 which I monitored closely as I could. Only in climate science can a heatwave be below freezing. They showed graphs of the anomalies instead of the actual temps. Both appear to be planetary waves bringing warm air from the tropics and Antartica’s was near Mount Erebus.

    However, I read a pretty good theory from someone (I’m guessing a scientist who couldn’t afford to be called out) but want to know your thoughts on it.

    :
    {The anomalies} is near both magnetic poles as they are moving at both locations north and south magnetic poles.

    The jet stream anomaly is located at the spot where the South Magnetic Pole is.
    The North Magnetic pole is located where the Arctic heat signature is located as well.
    As the magnetic poles continue to both move toward the Indian Ocean over Siberia and Indian Ocean these heat signatures/hot spots will follow the magnetic pole positions.
    Geomagnetic Reversal is primary driver of this recent pronounced Climate Change what is touted as Anthropogenic. Weakened magnetosphere means more radiation especially at the magnetic poles, more radiation ergo higher temperatures. The magnetism itself affects the jet stream.
    Just keep following the magnetic poles and observe this happening repeat itself and become more pronounced. It will become observably empirical.

    We are also in the past two weeks entered heightened solar activity as we are entering the solar maximum of this solar cycle 25.

  148. boomie789 says:

    https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/Simpsonwood-Scandal:3

    Video showing the collusion between the CDC the pharmaceutical companies to cover up a 1135% increased chance of autism from vaccinations.

    I actually found my vaccination card with all the shots I was given as a baby. There were a good bit on there. He says the vaccination in the video was issued in 89. I hope I didn’t get that one.

  149. CD Marshall says:

    “…I was very curious about what’s the meaning of life. I had an existential crisis, came to conclusion… that we don’t know the answer, but if we increase the scope & scale of civilization, we’ve better chance of understanding meaning of life and why we are here or even what are the right questions to ask. Therefore, we should strive to expand the scope and scale of consciousness to better understand the questions to ask about the answer that is the universe.” -Elon Musk

  150. Yah but materialism and autism doesn’t increase consciousness…they in fact decrease it. The answers are known…just not to him, but then, as an autist with no theory of mind and only having the level of consciousness to assume that everyone else knows what he knows, he imagines that the answers are known to nobody.

  151. J Cuttance says:

    Going shockingly on topic here, this video takes imaginary numbers from their birth to their insertion to atoms just before Copenhagen.

  152. Joseph E Postma says:

    The Veritasium guy is a materialist through and through. He just parrots the materialist perspective, and is otherwise philosophically and intellectually uninformed, as most scientists are today.

    “A general solution to the cubic equation was long considered impossible, until we gave up the requirement that math reflect reality.”

    Such a great statement, exposing their ignorance. Can they explain why SOME math explains reality, and other math doesn’t?

    They don’t even fn realize that’s a question to ask, let alone have the ability to address it.

    Imaginary numbers DO reflect reality. A materialist always takes their own ignorance of the answer as being some sort of proof of something.

  153. J Cuttance says:

    Yeah I thought you’d take an axe to that quote. Good stuff.

  154. CD Marshall says:

    Joe,
    a chemist/atmospheric physics guy is debating the atmosphere doesn’t have a lapse rate, parcels do not apply to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is controlled by KE not the IGL or something like that? I admit he lost me. Which MAKES NO SENSE IGL is gravity based, no KE in space. Gravity regulates the hydrostatic equilibrium, stratification of the atmospheric layers and the homegenous formation through density. So I looked at an older post of yours regarding the lapse rate, found it as always informative.

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/01/02/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-9-the-truth-about-the-cooling-atmosphere-and-the-lapse-rate/

    “Parcel is a concept in fluid mechanics.
    Big enough to ignore molecular properties

    But the atmosphere is best understood using the molecular gas law

    There are no parcels (or even gravity ) in the gas law.

    Parcel in fluid mechanics respond to gravity
    molecules according to the assumptions of the the gas law do not
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
    Horizontal properties of air – fluid mechanics
    vertical properties – gas laws

    A gas is made of molecules and the correct model is the molecular kinetic theory of gas.
    There are no parcels.
    The adiabatic theory of atmosphere warming is wrong.
    Reducing pressure does not change temperature
    T/h = g/c”

  155. CD Marshall says:

    This point on is his comment
    “Parcel is a concept in fluid mechanics.
    Big enough to ignore molecular properties…

  156. CD Marshall says:

    My bro was offered 150k to do this kind of stuff with gov cotracting in 1988. He refused.

  157. boomie789 says:

    Guy says a lot of interesting stuff. He says the culture of MAD isn’t in the east like it is in the west. They think they could win a nuclear war. Also, our nuclear weapons and systems are outdated.
    Russia has newer and more nukes.
    EMP bombs and other weapons we don’t have.

  158. Nepal says:

    Boomie, I haven’t watched video yet, but what does it matter if one side has more or better weapons? The weapons from 50 years ago are enough to reduce both countries to ash.

    Unless they have developed missile defense that can shoot down 1000 ICBMs that have all split into 100 warhead each, the outcome of nuclear war is MAD always, imo.

  159. boomie789 says:

    From what that guy said we don’t have 1000 ICBMs. We have 170 I think he said? Russia has over a thousand though.

    I think I remember him saying our warheads are singles too not multiples. He says we basically always signal to the Russians that we don’t want nuclear war but they are a lot more willing to go there. Well, they are definitely willing to call our bluff if our nuclear capabilities are actually weak. Especially in Europe.

    Also Russia has bunkers for their elite and the subways have nuclear bomb doors for their citizens.

    He says a bunch of other stuff too about the submarines and short range missiles. NATO relies on short range missiles more but we don’t have the submarines out to sea with them so they are useless.

    All Russian subs have the long range ICBMs that can be set to different degrees of destruction. I think he says our missiles can’t do that they are old.

    Pretty interesting.

  160. Zelator says:

    Interesting video that Boomie. Thanks.
    Look, If you are going to kick the big guy in the bollocks, expect a response. Don’t provoke unless you can back it up.
    Putin has always said if a conflict is inevitable, it’s important to strike first. And he will. That is the worrying part.

    It’s also the law of street fighting. My dad SAS taught me that.

    If Biden wants a war, Putin will give him a war, so painful, so punitive, so fierce he will never forget,
    and will regret the day he rattled the Bear’s cage.

    Europeans, paricularly Easten European culture has been built on war. It’s in their makeup. Would the western world have a stomach for a fight brought to their shores? When the standard of living is so poor, revolution and aggression is multiplied. Would you bet againt a hardened Russian town against a liberal, pussy, western town, with their gender politics and politicaly correct diatribe?

    There is only one winner.

    Revolution and evolution are built on raging against the machine.

    Rage on.

  161. CD Marshall says:

    My brother was in the Recon in the 80s, USSR went underground pumping out nukes the whole time our idiots stopped making them in the US. They are way ahead of the US in the nuclear program. They only thing that could be hindering them was more of a financial/resources limitation.

    Siberia has a lot of air pollution, how is that possible?

    A nuclear war makes no sense for sane people. It takes over 1k years the Earth to recover?

  162. Nepal says:

    Look like US has 3,750 warheads. Far less than peak but still enough to overwhelmingly destroy any country on earth. Also the ICBMs don’t split into 100 re-entry vehicles, but 3.

    I don’t see any way Russia, or us, or any wins a nuclear war.

  163. CD Marshall says:

    No the world has enough nukes to wipe the world out many times over. That’s just land nukes, subs changed the nuke war forever.

  164. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie and others,
    My governor just declared my state a free for all, not sure how I feel about it. Anyone who can legally open carry can now legally conceal carry. No permits. The problem with this is reciprocity laws state to state, not sure how they are going to figure that one out.

  165. Nepal says:

    CD, how have nuclear subs changed the game? I kinda thought ICBMs were enough to blow all things to hell on their own.

  166. CD Marshall says:

    Nuclear Subs are mobile (nearly untraceable) nuclear missile launchers that can almost literally pop up on your shore and fire a nuke then disappear.

  167. Nepal says:

    True. I guess there is way less warning.

    It all seems so bad right now. I heard of all the nuclear threatening from previous generations, I hoped I wouldn’t have to live through it. But Putin seems like a mad man. It keeps me up.

  168. ashemann says:

    It’s all western globalist media hype same as it always has been, No-one is mad enough to start slinging nuclear weapons around to their neighbours and enemies a far, except the muslim mullahs, not even little rocket man is that crazy.

  169. boomie789 says:

    Good news. I had to go to the capital and give them my fingerprints for my carry permit.

  170. CD Marshall says:

    I am literally having people who claim to have physics and thermodynamics education argue with me that heat escapes the Earth through radiation.

  171. Joseph E Postma says:

    They’ve been educated beyond their intelligence, and poorly. They don’t know the words they use but they put them together in a way that sounds smart, and that’s enough for them. The words do the magic after that…not the magic of comprehension, but the magic of pretense.

  172. J Cuttance says:

    Question. Does the earth measurably heat the dark side of the moon?

  173. Joseph E Postma says:

    Likely would a little bit.

  174. CD Marshall says:

    One comment,
    “Heat does escape to space, in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
    If you think heat transfer into a vacuum is impossible you’re thinking of thermal conduction, which is just one of the ways heat can be transferred.

    I’m not saying the vacuum of space is being heated, I’m saying heat is being lost to space by thermal radiation.

    Do you understand the difference?
    Just because a source loses heat by thermal radiation doesn’t mean the vacuum it loses it to heats up.”

    ME:
    It is energy not heat that escapes to space via radiation. Yes in loose semantics you can call it heat, but thermodynamic heat is not just energy, it is energy that can raise a T. Thus only the E transferred from the photon to a compatible object has the potential “to heat”.

  175. CD Marshall says:

    @J Cuttance
    That’s an interesting insight.

  176. CD Marshall says:

    Did you know they measured craters on the dark side that “could” be colder than Pluto? Physics is weird.

    “The lunar south pole is among the coldest parts of the solar system and may be in fact colder than what we expect from places like Pluto,” NASA scientist Richard Vondrak said at a press conference on Thursday.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17810-moon-is-coldest-known-place-in-the-solar-system/?msclkid=118d5e6aaede11eca3d292f80c54dfbd

    But that was written in 2006, so now we know Pluto is on average -232C
    https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/pluto/in-depth/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20Pluto%E2%80%99s%20temperature%20is%20-387%C2%B0F%20%28-232%C2%B0C%29%2C%20making,the%20planet%20it%20orbits%20in%20our%20solar%20system.?msclkid=7d12bf82aede11ec9b6604297cbf74a4

  177. CD Marshall says:

    Joe I have to copy and paste this for this bloke who claims wish to add anything?

    “Your obfuscation stemming from semantic hang-ups has me seriously doubting your scientific education.I studied solid state physics, advanced optics, nuclear physics and quantum mechanics in 3rd year uni.Now, what physics did you learn at uni? I’m dying to know.”

    ME:
    “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” -D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000

    “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” -Thermodynamics, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:

    “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” – -Daniel V. Schroeder Page 17, 1:4 Heat and Work from “An Introduction to Thermal Physics.”

    “Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” -page 18

    ”Heat is the spontaneous flow of energy from one body to another as a result of a temperature difference.” -Chapter 1 – Energy in Thermal Physics Daniel V. Schroeder: An Introduction to Thermal Physics

    ”Heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature.” -Energy Education.

    ”While internal energy refers to the total energy of all the molecules within the object, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference. Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit. Heat is not a property of a system. However, the transfer of energy as heat occurs at the molecular level as a result of a temperature difference.”-Nuclear Power Physics

  178. Looks good to me!

  179. Good one above too re heat to space. One HAS to be careful and perfectly precise else things go crazy and now space has a temperature etc.

  180. barkingmadMD says:

    The latest GHE explanation from a climate cult spokesperson:
    “Ghg concentrations set the mean distance an IR photon travels The higher ghg concentration, the more cycles of emission & absorption before thermal energy reaches space. It’s like wearing layers of clothes. The more layers the warmer the skin.”

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2020/10/how-greenhouse-gases-heat-surface.html…

    How do you respond to this drivel?

  181. CD Marshall says:

    So this was his re:
    “Anyone with a degree in physics would understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck’s law and the greenhouse gas effect.
    You clearly don’t understand how those fit together, and your followers deserve better than your obfuscation.
    One more thing: we are in agreement that 2+2=4”

  182. CD…they just say things.

  183. bmMD – they’re conflating stoppage of convective cooling with radiative heat transfer. They’re also pretending that energy can perform heating multiple times, heat recycling, which is impossible. That blog site is a well known troll around here and they’ve been debunked many times.

  184. boomie789 says:

    You’re mentioned in this blog Postma.

  185. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow. Old article!

  186. boomie789 says:

    https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/dr-nagase-vax-gene-editing:5

    Another doctor whistle blower about the jab. Says the human genome is permanently infected with infertility and spike protein genes. Expects a lot of infertility in the future.

  187. CD Marshall says:

    It was a good post I was thinking of older posts and all in the series “The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” would make excellent videos updated of course, where applicable.

  188. boomie789 says:

    And cancer too.

  189. CD Marshall says:

    Musk is considering creating his own free speech media site or offering to buy Twitter.

  190. CD Marshall says:

    Dr. Pat®️Paleoclimatologist
    1/ Global weather is driven by the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles. I know of no climate scientist who disagrees with this principle.

    2/ The greater the temperature difference, the harsher and more violent the weather. Again, I know of no climate scientist who disagrees with this principle.

    3/ The climate alarmists are adamant that the poles are warming faster than the tropics. They say this will cause more extreme weather, when the exact opposite is true.

    4/ They claim more heat and more CO2 will destroy our crops. The exact opposite is true. Ask anyone who owns a greenhouse. CO2 is the ultimate plant food.

  191. CD Marshall says:

    A physics dilemma

    “a blue glass sphere, one millimeter less in diameter than the drain, currently lodged in the drain. what tool solves this? i tried stick with sticky stuff on it but the glass is very resistant to adhesion”

    Vacuum doesn’t work.

  192. Nepal says:

    Detach the pipe that the drain is connected to. Blow up through the pipe to dislodge sphere. Hopefully don’t get too much hair or old food in your mouth.

  193. CD Marshall says:

    Too heavy. A father told them, “Been there done that, you’re in the stage of denial. The drain has to come off.”

    FYI if you have kids cover the drains.

  194. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    CD Marshall wrote:
    “A physics dilemma

    “a blue glass sphere, one millimeter less in diameter than the drain, currently lodged in the drain. what tool solves this? i tried stick with sticky stuff on it but the glass is very resistant to adhesion”

    Vacuum doesn’t work.”

    Had this happen… except our drain has a metal cross-brace about 3/4″ below the lip of the drain, so the (plastic) sphere just sat there… couldn’t get it up and out because I couldn’t get a grip on it, I tried the vacuum trick (it didn’t work), I tried dipping a loop of thread down below the sphere and yanking it out (didn’t work), and it couldn’t go down and out.

    So, being inventive, I had some LiquiLock, used to solidify the water in a toilet so when you take the toilet off the wax seal, the water doesn’t spill everywhere. Since the sphere was just slightly smaller than the drain, the water was going through very slowly. I dumped the entire contents of the packet into the drain, it solidified in a few minutes, then I just pulled the whole gelatinous mass up and out of the drain, sphere and all.

  195. CD Marshall says:

    Wow brilliant.

  196. CD Marshall says:

    So another worthless chat with a physicist who cut and ran.

    CD Marshall
    19 hours ago
    1.)The surface would not be -18C w/o ghgs. Is the Moon -18C in direct sunlight? No it’s around 120C without ghgs we would still have an atmosphere and its function is to reduce temperature not increase it and maintain an ideal decreased temperature longer say overnight. Which the water cycle in the form of phase changes is the main regulator of those temperatures.

    2.)Nothing is being “trapped” it is being re-directed and we are talking about light which moves at the speed of light. Not all energy equals heat and not all EM energy is re-absorbed back into the surface and if it is does not mean it is increasing the temperature in a fluid dynamic system with open convection.

    The troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium and will never be in thermal equilibrium which means “forcing” which would be from a closed system is not a valid claim for an open convective system without an energy source (such as the Sun or geothermal).
    CO2 has been much higher regionally and locally, Tyndale omitted those facts from his work.
    The global average is 15C (NASA Earth fact sheet) and that average surface temperature has not changed in around 45 years. The blackbody temperature, often associated with the global average, has gone down a degree in Kelvin, according to NASA.

    Toss on top of that,
    “There is no, and never has been, ANY empirical evidence for the basis of climate alarm and climate science. The entire field of climate is basically simply a pseudoscience of political expedience which ends with the vilification of the life molecule of carbon dioxide.”

    NAMASTE 🙏

    Barton Paul Levenson
    14 hours ago
    @CD Marshall Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. 1. That’s a thought experiment based on the Earth’s albedo remaining the same. 2. “Trapped” is a popular description of the process, not how the greenhouse effect actually works. 3. The atmosphere is in long-term thermal equilibrium, because if it were not, it would be steadily heating up or cooling down, and we would now be either vaporized or frozen. That’s what “thermal equilibrium” MEANS. 4. CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Nobody cares about temporary local variations, and they are not relevant to Tyndall’s work, which in any case is not all that modern radiative transfer theory depends on. A lot has happened since 1858. 5. The mean global annual temperature has risen 1.2 K from 1850 to today, and most of that was in the last 50 years. Read and learn:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    Toss on top of that,
    Just because you’re not familiar with the mountains of evidence behind this field doesn’t mean there’s no evidence; only that you’re ignorant.

    CD Marshall
    10 hours ago
    @Barton Paul Levenson
    1. It’s a failed assertion not based on physics. The tropics would be hotter and the poles colder. Nocturnal radiative inversions would increase. Without clouds albedo would decrease, increasing surface insolation. So yes it is a false claim to stipulate the Earth would be 255 Kelvin.

    2.The only “real” property of a “greenhouse gas” is that it has a dipole moment making it able to absorb certain line spectrum of electromagnetic infrared radiation and re-radiate that energy. Again energy is absorbed and reradiated, heat is an action on increasing T. Superfluous exposition to call it anything else.

    The atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, it is in quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium dP/dZ density*gravity. More to the point the troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium, show me dT>0 anywhere? LTE is possible and even that is arbitrary. The adiabatic process maintains a relative homogenous atmosphere. Convective currents strongly influence dT in the lower atmosphere.

    1800s were based on a handful of stations and according to satellite based data starting in 1979 we are indeed presently cooling. Which cooling or warming is irrelevant since CO2 is not and has never been the driver of climate. I guess you missed the potential heat capacity of 1,338,000,000 km^3 of ocean?
    Oceans strongly influenced long term T variances.

    Mountains of assertions is not evidence. Especially when they can’t intelligently grasp radiative forcing or comprehensively account for insolation.

    Holocene Thermal Maximum is long gone. Sorry you missed it.

    Barton Paul Levenson
    9 hours ago
    @CD Marshall Well, you’re completely wrong or irrelevant in everything you say, but I’ve got a life that consists of more than arguing with crackpots, so I’m not going to respond further. Feel free to have the last word.

    CD Marshall
    2 minutes ago
    @Barton Paul Levenson
    It’s just physics. Denying that is just denying the real science.

    This doesn’t change for the radiative greenhouse gas effect theory.

    (Th^4-Tc^4)

    Cheers

  197. Joseph E Postma says:

    @CD – their response didn’t even make any sense.

    “1. That’s a thought experiment based on the Earth’s albedo remaining the same.”

    Yes…exactly…moron. You see how they re-state the fact as if the fact is meaningless?

    Sophistry…tricks in lying. You definitely found an enemy there.

    Excellent comments from you. Too bad we can never actually find one that can speak and think normally. These are all psycho entities.

  198. CD Marshall says:

    Joe I know you’re EXTREMLY busy but if you feel inspired to address this I wouldn’t complain. I’m reading it myself put you can do in 1 minute. Or LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks can have a crack at it. I would invite him to come here himself but we both know what happened last time.

    Cheers
    BJ Chippindale
    Former Engineer at NASA JPL; degrees- Psych, Mech Engineering and Comp Sci.
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-anthropogenic-global-warming/answer/BJ-Chippindale

  199. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s the usual thing. Firstly, his masters degree is in computer science, so according to their usual requirements for rules of engagement, he’s not qualified to be discussing this lol

    Firstly, what he describes is 100% inconsistent with the basic pedagogy, with how the greenhouse effect is taught in physics class. This has been discussed before. In physics class we do not teach something NOT Newton’s Laws only to magically use the real Newton’s Laws after graduation even though we’ve never been taught whatever the real laws are while in class. No, in physics class we learn the real things, or what are supposed to be the real things, and then we use these SAME things after graduation in the real world. SO strange that the greenhouse effect taught in physics class is not the real thing, and the real thing only gets used after graduation!

    Secondly, what this is, is the whole tropospheric hotspot thing…that’s what this is about. This is where Lindzen became a skeptic, because as a real scientist, he reported the findings that the hotspot was not there. Hence, no warming…but more, refuting this particular interpretation of the GHE and the GHE in general.

    Third, just because a cool gas gets heated by the warmer surface, does not mean a “GHE”. Why call that a GHE!? What a strange, random phrase to apply to something which is nothing to do with an actual greenhouse. That a cool gas can be heated by a warmer surface does not explain how to bump -18C up to +15C, and this goes back to this explanation of the GHE not being consistent with the physics-classroom definition of the GHE with -18C heating input. A surface heated to -18C, which then heats a cooler gas, does not translate to the -18C heated surface now becoming +15C.

    Fourth, he references the adiabatic gradient, but uses phrases pretending that it defines nothing. The distribution in temperature of the atmosphere is a necessary mathematical and physical feature of it. By definition, the average of a distribution cannot be found at an extremity, but within the middle. If you expect an average, you cannot expect to find the numerical value of the average at values which are the extremity of the distribution. The bottom of the atmosphere must be the warmest part of the atmosphere, and the average in the middle. You work out the math for this (I did in my last book), and you precisely explain the temperature structure of the atmosphere and the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere.

  200. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks bud. I’ve been shredding it to the best of my ability. He uses tricky wording it gets easy to miss the clever misdirects. So far…

    ME:
    You are describing a system in thermal equilibrium which the troposphere is not in TE and conservation of energy (E equals E out) is not thermal equilibrium. This is well understood by most engineers who have to understand thermodynamics correctly.

    “Energy Balance” (This part had some clever wording)
    As seen from space, or the effective blackbody, this is correct. This however has nothing to do with effecting the Earth’s surface temperature. The T of the Earth is 254 Kelvin. That’s not the argument. The BB of Venus is 226 Kelvin. It does not possess an “energy imbalance”.

    “How E is transferred”
    More precise, 6 basic processes determine a change in troposphere air temperature and of those processes only one does it without the addition of energy.

  201. CD Marshall says:

    O2/N2 corrected that.

  202. CD Marshall says:

    “Capturing Photons”
    This part needs some revision. WV is the latent heat not NCGHGs. O2/N2 are still excited by convective currents and can transfer E via collision.

    Latent Heat:
    Thermal energy absorbed or released during a change of phase at constant temperature and pressure.

  203. CD Marshall says:

    The “greenhouse gases absorb part”
    This is a dual process; molecular collisions works both ways. Over a billion collisions (which increases in rate the closer to sea level) transfers E via conduction to and away from ghgs. The relaxation time of CO2 is around 1 second to over a billion t/v v/t collisions.

  204. CD Marshall says:

    This guy decimated these politicians.

  205. CD Marshall says:

    This is a weird question to ask.

    “how might the differing magnetic environments & atmospheric layering of Venus, Earth & Mars affect their temperatures, in light of the electrical nature of the cyclical solar wind/cosmic ray flux?”

    I say none.
    Isn’t that strongly the job of the adiabatic?

  206. Joseph E Postma says:

    Agree.

  207. CD Marshall says:

    “OLR = σ(T_eff)⁴ = κσ(T_s)⁴ meaning that the greenhouse factor κ = (T_eff / T_s)⁴

    If the atmosphere did not absorb longwave radiation, κ would be equal to one and the surface temperature would equal the effective temperature.”

    Form a Uni student. He says it’s not about heat but climate science is claiming energy balance equals TE.

    I explained this is the error the planet does not warm or cool given an “imbalance” of I=(S*4) (1-a)- sigma eT^4 and conservation of energy is not conversation of Q. They are using radiative forcing incorrectly. slowing down cooling, does not equate to heating and generating higher T.

    I topped it off with the heat radiation equation P=e sigma A (T^4-Tc^4)

  208. CD Marshall says:

    Why does Uni teach this? Why do they think T is driven by the TOA and not the surface?
    Radiative forcing is the net change in ASR – OLR at the TOA
    OLR = κσ(T_s)⁴

    Where κ = (T_eff / T_e)⁴

  209. k is just emissivity here

  210. CD Marshall says:

    Emissivity is the surface or is it being used as the planet as a whole for effective T?

    “Radiative forcing is the net change in ASR – OLR at the TOA”
    This part is what they claim changes the global T. Which is ironic for a LIA is from typically blocking TOA insulation from reaching the surface.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s