Is it possible to define God and explain consciousness? In an earlier episode we realized that we would have to explain God if we were to explain existence. Learn how we can now do that, through mathematical reason.
Ontological Mathematics & the Theory of Everything 5: The Mind and the Brain – Consciousness and God
This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged brain, consciousness, god, mind. Bookmark the permalink.
It therefore follows that memories are the transmission of information through time.
In effect, our brains are time machines.
Pingback: Rp. Ontological Mathematics & the Theory of Everything 5: The Mind and the Brain – Consciousness and God – Unexpected Objects
So the bot Alex is back on Twitter or Anubis. Evenminded. Balloon Boy. Erik. Bugs Bunny. Eli Rabbet or whoever he is posing as.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Alex says hi and he really misses you. 😁
“Um yeah, that’s not written by a scientist. It was written by a crank that thinks he has a perpetual free energy machine.”
I guess you didn’t know you didn’t have a science degree. Now that’s weird.
Poor Alex… even after all this time, he finds himself utterly unable to pull his head out of liberalism’s arse so he can take a look around at reality. LOL
Eli Rabbet is Joshua Halpern… I’m unsure if Joshua Halpern is ‘evenminded’, but he very well could be. If so, I’ve drop-kicked him across the width and breadth of the internet for more than 3 years, often causing him to melt down so badly that he just repeated a certain word (“DISMISSED!!!”) for hours on end, or found himself utterly unable to form complete sentences. LOL
Hey guys need help in tidying up my terminology and perhaps numbers. Really hoping you guys could help out. My thoughts are based upon the inspiration of many..
From Nikolov and Zeller, Connolly and Connolly, Postma, Holmes and others that escape me at this moment.
Please advise honestly. If it is all a coincidence or it does not prove anything? Or my application of the math is just wrong.
So I have recently noticed that the molar mass of “air” when converted to joules and watts equates to 390 Watts or 288 Kelvin when we assume the stp of 101325 pascals.
This is based solely on the energy contained within an electron here on Earth
Molar mass of air is approx.. 28.96 grams per mole. When I calculate how many electrons are in a “mole of air” I get 8.74E+24 electrons or 14.519 moles of electrons in mole of air
Knowing that an electron on earth has 1.602E-19 Joules of energy one can then calculate that 1 “mole of air” has 1400859.92 joules of energy. This equates to 390 watts. Which equates to 288 Kelvin. Surely this is not a coincidence.
VENUS
I was then also then able to use the exact same process and calculate the temperature on Venus @ 1 BAR – 100,000 pascals with a molar mass of 43.45 grams per mole which is 1.314000E+25 electrons per Venusian mole of air.
The observed average temp on Venus @1 Bar or 100,000 pascals on Venus is 340 Kelvin
My calculations are bang on 340 Kelvin.
The catch though is that I had to change the value of energy (joules) an electron here on earth to that of Venusian using Earths perspective. This is unusual but it works!
So 1.60e-19 joules / Venusian gravity multiplied by Earths gravity multiplied by the ratio of distance with respect to the sun for Venus and Earth. Then apply the inverse square law.
So Venus is 1.91 times closer to the Sun.
Using the inverse square law on 1.91 the factor is now 1.91^.25 which equates to 1.175. This inspiration come from the Robert Holmes paper
On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance and the Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies
So 1.602e-19 / 8.87 * 9.80665 * 1.175 = 2.08e-19 Joules per electron
Therefore 1.314000E+25 electrons per Venusian mole * 2.08e-19 joules per electron / 3600 to get Watts = 759 Watts thus 340 Kelvin
Below is a summary table of above.
Earth
Venus
Jopo wrote:
“Knowing that an electron on earth has 1.602E-19 Joules of energy”
“The catch though is that I had to change the value of energy (joules) an electron here on earth to that of Venusian using Earths perspective. This is unusual but it works!”
The elementary charge doesn’t change, it’s always 1.602176634e−19 C (Coulomb).
1 C = (1 / 1.602176634e−19) e
So 1 C = 6241509074460762607.7762409809304 e.
Or, in simple language, 6241509074460762607.7762409809304 electrons equates to 1 C.
8.74e24 electron / mol of air (from your post):
8740000000000000000000000 / 6241509074460762607.7762409809304 e C-1 = 1400302.378116 C
Faraday constant (F) = 96485.3321233 C mol-1, which gives us
1400302.378116 C / 96485.3321233 C mol-1 =
14.513111447100926787218348661908 mol of electrons.
Pretty on-track so far… you’ll have to describe how you got Joules from Coulombs, and how you converted that to temperature in Kelvin.
A Joule is a unit of energy, a Coulomb is a unit of electric charge… one cannot interconvert unless one knows the voltage, given that 1 J/C = 1 V.
That’s sort of like asking how many watts equal one amp. You don’t know unless you also know the voltage.
Ah, I think I see what you did.
You set the Earth J/C = 1 volt as a reference. Then you shifted the Earth’s J/C of 1 volt to 1.299731849665709205443324421869 V for Venus. Is that it? I’m not sure that’s valid, but then I can’t find anything about the J/C ratio of either planet. We know the atmospheric electrical gradient of Earth is ~120 V / m in a flat field on a clear day… do we know what it is on Venus? Because that’d give us a direct comparison that may lend corroboration to your calculations.
(0.0000000000000000001602176634 / 8.87 m s-2) * 9.80665 m s-2 * (Earth aphelion + perihelion / 2 =(152100000 km + 147,095,000 km)/2 = 149,597,500 km / Venus aphelion + perihelion / 2 = (108,939,000 km + 107,477,000 km)/2 = 108,208,000 km) = 0.00000000000000000024489076916351516038737703543436 = 2.4489076916351516038737703543436e-19
So whereas you get 2.08240e-19 J/e for Venus, I get 2.4489e-19… you might check to see if that’s just due to rounding in your calculations, and whether that invalidates your calculations.
My numbers are correct. The only issue is that I have created a constant of 3600 or I have converted to watt hours. Which is thus difficult for me to explain why. It is a massive coincidence though that then using the SB law then equates this to 288 K. The next coincidence is that we can use gravity and the inverse square law to calc the temp on Venus at 1 Bar which is the equivalent of Earth pressure. So the sticky point is why convert to Watt hours. Yep I need help here. Calculating Watts required to heat up a gas. Is it normal to convert joules to watt hours. To a point I say yes it is. We do it to calculate size of elements to use to heat up water or even AIR
As for the mention that the 1.602e-19 EV or joules is applied universally, I disagree. The fact that we can apply conversions using gravity from Venus and Earth tells me different.
SI unit for joules is kg.m2/s2
SI unit for power is kg.m2/s3
I never said I solved this. I said I have come across and I need to tidy up. What is the significance of the constant 3600? Why does it only apply to around the 1 Bar mark. These are other questions that need to be addressed after. I suspect that is relevant to optical density. I am way over my head here and need guidance for or against.
Kooks if you apply the inv sq law as outlined in Robert Holmes paper then the 2.4489e-19 divide by 1.175 you will get the 2.0824e-19
Aside… you want to terraform Venus? You want to clear the sulfuric acid from its atmosphere and make it more Earth-like?
Lime (CaCO3)… millions upon millions upon millions of tons of limestone ground to a very fine powder and applied at the top of the atmosphere. It’ll react with the sulfuric acid to form gypsum (CaSO4), with which one could then build buildings.
H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) + CaCO3 (lime) → CaSO4 (gypsum) + H2O (water) + CO2 (carbon dioxide)
The atmosphere would clear, the sulfuric acid trapping energy in the atmosphere would chemically react and no longer be in the atmosphere, so the Atmospheric Infrared Window would open wide, the planet would cool.
The resultant water due to the chemical reaction would start acting as a literal refrigerant (in the strict refrigeration cycle sense) just as it does in Earth’s atmosphere, and the additional CO2 would act as a net atmospheric radiative coolant just as it does in Earth’s atmosphere.
As well, the CO2 would be excellent plant food, but I suspect that one would have to grow the plants in a partially-shaded building due to the higher solar insolation of Venus. That gets O2 into the atmosphere.
A few million years of that, and you’ve got a practically livable planet with a much less-dense atmosphere, although it’d be much hotter than Earth due to nearly double the solar insolation… and I couldn’t imagine living on a planet with a day longer than its year… the heat buildup would be brutal even after we’d terraformed it, and the night-side would now get brutally cold, so the winds between day and night side would be vicious.
But if we’re at that point on the Kardashev Scale where we’re terraforming a planet, I’m sure we can think of ways to spin it up to a 24 hour day and move it outward in orbital radius.
“2000 Mules” (2022)
“Documentary on the alleged criminal voter fraud and ballot stuffing during the 2020 USA Presidential Election, which may have changed the legitimate outcome.”
(https://odysee.com/@BannedYouTubeVideos:4/2000-Mules-2022:a?r=AUHBg8UpFrFRjosg7dZhKdpHwQ2D37MM)
Jopo wrote:
“Kooks if you apply the inv sq law as outlined in Robert Holmes paper then the 2.4489e-19 divide by 1.175 you will get the 2.0824e-19”
2.4489076916351516038737703543436e-19 / 1.175 = 2.0841767588384268969138471100797e-19
Yeah, you’re right… that’s either an odd coincidence, or you’ve got something there. Keep digging, you’ll find the connections, if they’re there, such that you can fully explain it.
If it has meaning, given the alignment of the numbers, then it has meaning the same way that the Great Pyramid of Giza and its internal mathematical alignment has meaning: it indicates a design to the universe and the constants of nature.
You guys should watch this – I’ve checked the math and it is all correct – the Great Pyramid has mathematical relations encoded in it which indicate that its builders were aware of profound mathematical properties of nature, including the speed of light, etc.:
As Nepal points out – the way Jopo is getting the numbers doesn’t make any sense: however, if Jopo is coming up with them utilizing basic whole numbers which are accepted long-standing features of our society and world…then it indicates a hidden allusion to knowledge across disparate sources you wouldn’t expect.
If you can come up relations like these using random numbers…then of course it is meaningless…you’re just using the numbers you need to. But if you do it using numbers which are meaningful, and they’re whole numbers, or constants, and relate to human or mathematical existence, then you may have found something meaningful.
https://ugetube.com/watch/2000-mules-by-dinesh-d-souza-documentary_ElnLVOFcSCUaC4J.html
I need a competent periodic table to download or copy. What do you guys use? provided you don’t have it memorized.
There’s this, but it’s online-only:
https://inl.gov/periodic-table/
Here’s one that’s online and can be downloaded as a PDF:
https://periodic-table-hd.netlify.app/
I created my own, but it’s not fully complete yet… it’s really difficult to draw the electron configuration for the atoms on the higher end of the Periodic Table and have them fit into the spreadsheet.
I got the idea (and copied the simpler graphics) from an online Periodic Table, but I wanted more info. That Periodic Table at the time didn’t go past Xenon, so I had to make the graphics for the rest of them (I’m up to Platinum) myself… and as you know, I’m no artist.
I work on it from time to time, whenever I get a roundtuit.
Thank you, perfect.
Gerald Kutney, an alleged PhD Chemist, actually gave me this link to explain the GHGE. 😂
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=The%20Short%20Answer%3A,a%20comfortable%20place%20to%20live
In English please
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pfizers-mrna-vaccine-goes-into-liver-cells-and-is-converted-to-dna-study_4458487.html
The full study
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm#B39-cimb-44-00073
All cells contain reverse-transcriptase, an enzyme. Some viruses and bacteria also manufacture reverse-transcriptase to allow them to inject themselves more easily into the DNA strand, what is known as reverse-transcription.
Some diseases also make one especially prone to undergoing reverse-transcription, HIV amongst them.
So the mRNA can be transcribed into the DNA in the liver, making it a permanent part of your DNA… that means you’re a permanent spike protein factory, your immune system is constantly attacking the spike protein production (ie: attacking your own body), which can lead to immune system exhaustion (which is what they used to call it, now they’ve got cases of immune system exhaustion so bad that they’re starting to call it ‘VAIDS’ (Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Yes, it is functionally the same as having AIDS.
If that reverse transcription occurs in germline cells (and we now know that can take place), the resultant offspring’s immune system won’t recognize the spike protein nor the virus as a threat… the virus would have free rein in that child’s body, making them a superspreader and variant factory.
They really screwed the pooch when they started mucking about in DNA and RNA, something they just barely understand. We’re just now starting to see the horrors that will come about because of this essentially unregulated (because the CDC is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies) experiment in gene therapy… and that is what the mRNA ‘vaccines’ are… gene therapy. Even the Pfizer CEO has admitted this.
Well, the CDC, NIH, FDA, etc., etc., etc.
And that, of course, explains the increasing rate of hepatitis we’re now seeing. The gene-therapy ‘vaccine’ mRNA (with a non-organic end-cap so it can’t be broken down as easily by the liver) undergoes reverse transcription into liver cells in as little as 6 hours after first exposure.
If heads don’t literally roll and bodies swing over this debacle, then civilization is lost. We’d have become too sheepified to survive. And superspreader variant factories are how they’ll cull us.
Anyone interested in nuclear fusion? Webinar tomorrow:
https://www.comsol.com/events/comsol-days/comsol-day-nuclear-fusion-101502
Topics:
Trends in Nuclear Fusion; Testing and Development of RF Components for ITER; Modeling RF Heating of Hydrogen Plasmas for Nuclear Fusion; Magnets, Coils, and Superconductors; Magnetohydrodynamics and Heat Transfer; Designing a Nuclear Fusion Reactor Using Multiphysics; Diagnostic Models for Nuclear Fusion; From Densification to Marangoni Flow: Optics Processing In Support of High-Power Laser Systems; Charged Particle Tracing in Magnetic Fields; Magnetomechanics and Lorentz Forces
Thank you again, clear and concise.
Interesting Jonae Nova mentioned Australia (who is killing everything for green energy) has enormous deposits of Thorium. How’s that for sick irony. I seriously doubt that government will allow one ounce of that used.
*Joanne Nova
So in the simplistic version here, energy leaving the planet is not the only means of cooling the planet. The adiabatic converts kinetic energy to potential energy. I did hear Earth has more PE than KE in the atmosphere.
This does look like a little like a doorway. Maybe China got to Mars first. 😯
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAXbR2L.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
Remember the old adage: “What goes up, must come down.”
So while a rising parcel of air converts temperature (atomic and molecular kinetic energy) to gravitational potential energy, a falling parcel of air does the opposite, converting gravitational potential energy to atomic and molecular kinetic energy.
That’s known as auto-compression.
We have a real-world example of what I describe… in the Grand Canyon.
Temperature at the canyon bottom is consistently ~20 – 25 F warmer than the North Rim or South Rim temperature, and air flows out of the canyon on the upstream end (except on days when there’s a S-SW prevailing wind).
Keep in mind this is in a canyon nearly a mile deep… not much sunlight reaching the bottom in the North Rim / South Rim region because its orientation is roughly east-west and the walls are pretty steep.
Note that ‘transition temperature’ in the context below does not relate to phase change, but to a change in whether the molecule acts to thermalize radiation and thus warm the atmosphere; or absorb energy into its vibrational mode quantum states via collision, emit radiation and thus cool the atmosphere.
All radiative molecules are dual-role molecules… they can act to warm the atmosphere at atmospheric temperatures below their ‘transition temperature’ (in the case of CO2, via absorption of a 14.98352 µm photon to become vibrationally excited, then conversion of that vibrational mode energy to translational mode energy of other atmospheric molecules upon molecular collision), or cool the atmosphere at atmospheric temperatures above their ‘transition temperature’ (via collisional transfer of translational mode energy of other atmospheric molecules to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which is then radiatively emitted at :
{v23(3)} → {v22(2)} 668.1 cm-1 (14.96782 µm)
{v22(2)} → {v21(1)} 667.8 cm-1 (14.97454 µm)
{v21(1)} → {v20(0)} 667.4 cm-1 (14.98352 µm)
{v3(1)} → {v20(2)} 1063.7 cm-1 (9.40115 µm)
Adapted from image at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190528024004/http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm
The ‘transition temperature’ of any given radiative molecular species is dependent upon the differential between:
1) the combined translational mode energy (ie: the air temperature) of two colliding molecules (one CO2, one any other atom or molecule),
-and-
2) the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule.
When 2) > 1), energy flows from vibrational mode to translational mode, which is a warming process.
When 1) > 2), energy flows from translational mode to vibrational mode, which is a cooling process.
Compression heating and radiative emission have created a ‘wind tunnel’ effect whereby the warmer compression-heated (in accord with the Ideal Gas Law) air at the canyon bottom puts CO2 into its ‘net-coolant’ mode. The CO2 is vibrationally excited by the translational mode energy of the other atmospheric molecules because more atmospheric molecules carry sufficient kinetic energy to vibrationally excite CO2.
The CO2 emits so much radiation from the canyon bottom that one can trace out the profile of the canyon just from its radiation signature as seen from space.
That loss of translational mode energy of the atmospheric molecules (which flows to the vibrational mode quantum states of CO2 and is then radiatively emitted) causes the air to become denser, and it flows along the canyon bottom upstream (because it absorbs humidity from the river, making it a bit more buoyant, but not buoyant enough to flow upward overcoming the downflowing air from the canyon rim, so it’s forced to flow upstream), which is why Page Airport has a wind predominantly to the N-NE, and why the town there is warmer than surrounding areas on cold days.
The airflow out of the upstream end of the canyon pulls more air over the canyon rims and down into the canyon, heating it via compression, whereupon the process repeats.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=36.34;-111.81;7&l=temperature-2m
So the Grand Canyon is a gigantic radiative cooler.
I’ve got the calculations for CO2’s transition temperature somewhere… it’s based upon what percentage of air molecules have sufficient kinetic energy such that during a collision, the combined kinetic energy of two colliding molecules carry enough kinetic energy to excite the CO2 vibrational mode quantum state… so, the upper end of the Boltzmann Speed Distribution Curve. As temperature increases, more molecules carry sufficient kinetic energy, so more CO2 is collisionally excited. Let me see if I can find it. Suffice to say, the average near-surface atmospheric temperature is ~288 K for a reason.
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks 2022/05/13 at 1:36 AM
Wow, great post! Thanks.
Here is your example map time locked to 13 May 2022 0800 UTC
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=36.34;-111.81;7&l=temperature-2m&t=20220513/0800
If you’re looking for a chuckle, I’ve been drop-kicking a couple new climate tardlings over at NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat. Join in the fun if you’re so inclined.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/05/09/saturation-of-ir-wavelengths/
Thus far, the one whinging the loudest has claimed that Kirchhoff’s Law is inviolable (it’s been invalidated for all but certain laboratory settings); that thermodynamic equilibrium isn’t a quiescent state (it’s literally the definition of TE); that energy can flow without an energy density gradient and indeed can flow against an energy density gradient without external energy pumping that system energy up the energy density gradient; that “isothermal radiation exchange” can take place; and that I’m wrong (while admitting I’m correct). LOL
Keep in mind, this is an MIT-educated guy… so he’s presented his MIT text and asked if MIT has been teaching people energy transfer incorrectly for the last 4 decades. To which I replied, of course they have… the method they teach is a handy shortcut way of accounting for energy flows, but it misleads the scientifically-illiterate into thinking that energy can flow without regard to the energy density gradient, which is exemplified in the blather that climate loon is spewing. LOL
LOL@KKK
That’s an impressive library you have at your disposal.
You are clearly armed to the teeth and ready to fire 🙂
So having a think about the conversion of work into electrical Watts.
By default Power is rated at work / Time. (3600) Well in my world that is the case.
Thus the difference of work done versus work being done when it comes to nominating a wattage
With the Joules per electron situation in my earlier post. It is stated it takes 1.602e-19 JOULES to cause an electron to lift in potential by 1 VOLT. This is just telling us the how many joules is required in one second to cause that result. It could easily be rated at 4.45e-23 Joules for the electron to lift in potential by 1 VOLT per hour! e.g 1.602e-19 / 3600 = 4.45e-23 Joules per second
You don’t really need to know how much the electron is lifted in potential, you just need a base reference to compare the planets. So set Earth as though it were lifting electron potential by 1 V as a reference, then scale it for the other planets to match the known planetary temperature, then compare the lift in potential between the planets. If those ratios align with the rest of your math, you’ve got something, and you can then figure out how much Earth’s lift in electron potential actually is, and scale the other planets accordingly.
If you can figure this out, it’s got far more wide-ranging implications than just the planets in our solar system… this could be huge. Keep at it. You’ll get there.
Are you saying you KNOW?
Philip Mulholland
I wish you’d start your own blog or site or whatever. Your insights are valuable I’ve learned a great deal from you.
All of you guys are a wealth of knowledge.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks might be advanced AI from the future. 😂
@CDM Thanks.
One of the most powerful features in the development of humanity is the process of technology transfer. That is the application of a given procedure or idea in a novel setting. I view my role as a transmitter of ideas rather than that of an originator or source.
I do have a place on Research Gate where I collate my geoscience work.
@Philip Mulholland
Michael Crow was trying to get in contact with you at Research Gate. Not sure if he did? He’s been researching water vapor for decades, has thousands of records to prove it. He needed a veteran scientist to further his research (a colab I’m thinking?).
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
He has a link at Research Gate but I can’t get to it.
two sources I like.
Black Hole Magic
When you look at the latest videos about the new found black hole one is under the impression that one travels in a spaceship towards the centre of our galaxy. Nothing of this is in fact the case. The team responsible for this big scam has gathered un absurd amount of data with their so-called telescope and have fabricated images by software manipulation and a priori hypotheses of the reality of what they try to show. The final image has a resolution that is surpassing the resolution of their instruments. It’s all about data manipulation.
Anyone with a critical mind sees right hrough this nonsense.
Well, that sews up SamH over at NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat… he’s so butthurt that he’s now denying that he denied Kirchhoff’s own words. In fact, he’s so sparsely-read that he didn’t even know they were Kirchhoff’s own words. LOL
Of course, reality will never sink in for the climate kooks… they’re literally insane and thus ineducable. So rather than admit his mistakes and learn from them, he stomped off in a huff. LOL
In my meanderings I came across a paper that said CO2 actually does not have an active magnetic dipole in a relaxed state. So naturally if that is true it is no different than a homonuclear diatomic molecule until it is excited.
Contradictions to that statement are everywhere. Did they mean something else? Or is a CO2 molecule simply never truly relaxed, something that could be achieved maybe only in a lab? For one prime reason (according to my nonscientific mind) that it is such a powerful coolant in the upper atmosphere is that a “colder” CO2 molecule will re-radiative in a unidirectional pattern. Thus when solar storms strike it absorbs (I have noticed discrepancies in absorption or reflection among a lot of papers) and redirects that energy back the way it came in with the help of NO (Nitric Oxide).
“A volume of emitting IR photons will only equally emit in all directions when the surrounding air parcel is the same temperature.
This is confirmed by the NASA Saber instrument. NO and CO2 protect against solar storms in the thermosphere, and 95% of the absorbed radiation gets near instantly radiated back to the colder space.” -MP
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarstorm-power.html
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks Copied this great reference to have. Been a bit confused on these terms myself.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks PERMALINK
May 16, 2022 8:12 pm
Fair point. That doesn’t invalidate, however, the fact that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation can be violated, as several studies now show.
Fundamental physical laws aren’t violated, if they were, they wouldn’t be laws.
The words “fact”, “theory”, “hypothesis” and “law” have very specific definitions in science:
———-
Hypothesis: A tentative explanation of an empirical observation that can be tested. It is merely an educated guess.
———-
Working hypothesis: A conjecture which has little empirical validation. A working hypothesis is used to guide investigation of the phenomenon being investigated.
Scientific hypothesis: In order for a working hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, it must be testable, falsifiable and it must be able to definitively assign cause to observed effects.
Null hypothesis: Also known as nullus resultarum. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis should be that CO2 does not cause global warming.
A Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected erroneously when it is in fact true.
A Type II error occurs if the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is in fact false.
———-
Fact: An empirical observation that has been confirmed so many times that scientists can accept it as true without having to retest its validity each time they experience whatever phenomenon they’ve empirically observed.
Law: A mathematically rigorous description of how some aspect of the natural world behaves.
Theory: An explanation of an empirical observation which is rigorously substantiated by tested hypotheses, facts and laws.
Laws describe how things behave in the natural world, whereas theories explain why they behave the way they do.
For instance, we have the law of gravity which describes how an object will behave in a gravitational field, but we’re still looking for a gravitational theory which fits into quantum mechanics and the Standard Model and explains why objects behave the way they do in a gravitational field.
——————–
Hence, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation should actually rightfully be deemed a hypothesis… it cannot be a law, a law is a mathematically rigorous description of how some aspect of the natural world behaves… and given that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only really pertains to idealized blackbody objects, and given that idealized blackbody objects are idealizations which do not exist and are in fact provable contradictions, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation at best describes something which does not and cannot exist.
lots of war footage
@Joe Postma
Joe, just found this but it is a much older post. Wow McGinn really is a nut job.
“Paranoia Induced Stubborn Stupidity of Joe Postma”
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/paranoia-induced-stubborn-stupidity-of-joe-postma/
How stupid are these people?
They squirm and twist every way they can to deliberately and with intentional malice misdirect heat and energy. The GHGE cannot exist without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Thus they reject a law over a ‘nullus resultarum’ as @LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks puts it then pretend we are the ones who are delusional.
CD Marshall wrote:
“In my meanderings I came across a paper that said CO2 actually does not have an active magnetic dipole in a relaxed state.”
I’m not sure, but that might be referring to the {v1} vibrational mode quantum state.
From my prior writings:
The CO2 molecule (a triatomic covalently-bonded linearly symmetric molecule with an axis of symmetry along the nuclei and a plane of symmetry perpendicular to this axis) has two rotational mode quantum states, three vibrational modes (one with two degenerate states) and four fundamental vibrational mode quantum states at 3 radiation wavelength bands centered on:
4.25677 µm ({v3}; 2349.2 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v3(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 680.7 K, 407.6 C, 765.7 F
Asymmetric stretch mode; this mode is very IR-active, but the dipole moment oscillates parallel to the molecule’s symmetric axis, and therefore ΔJ = 0 Q-branch transition is forbidden (photon angular momentum is transferred to electronic mode degrees of freedom instead of rotational mode degrees of freedom, and since the resonant radiation for the vibro-rotational fine structure of the electronic mode doesn’t have sufficient energy to excite the electronic mode, it cannot be absorbed), making this very narrow-band. The radiance at this narrow frequency band is also minimal, falling at the minima between the Planck curves of solar (incoming) and terrestrial (outgoing) radiation. As discussed below, however, the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state is the main route for v-v (vibrational-to-vibrational) transfer of energy from vibrationally-excited N2{v1(1)} to CO2{v3(1)}, as used in CO2 lasers.
7.20357 µm ({v1}; 1388.2 cm–1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v1(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 402.3 K, 129.12 C, 264.4 F
Symmetric stretch mode; this mode is IR-inactive and Raman-active, it cannot absorb IR radiation since the molecule has no change in net magnetic dipole moment unless the molecule is perturbed via collision at the same time that it absorbs a resonant photon. It does, however, Raman-scatter.
14.98352 µm ({v2}; 667.4 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v21(1)}; {v21(1)} -> {v22(2)}; {v22(2)} -> {v23(3)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 193.4 K, -79.75 C, -111.55 F
2 degenerate bending modes with 3 practically-degenerate vibrational states.
There is a narrow absorption band centered on ~2.7 µm, but it is swamped by the {v3} (asymmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3755 cm-1, the {v1} (symmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3652 cm-1 and the {v2 + v3} band of H2O centered at ~5000 cm-1, and thus has little radiance available to it except in extremely low humidity locales:
– 2.76785 µm ({v20(0) -> v22(2) + v3(1)}; 3612.91 cm-1 wavenumber)
– 2.69209 µm ({v20(0) -> v1(1) + v3(1)}; 3714.59 cm-1 wavenumber)
…the only one of those vibrational modes which has any appreciable radiance available to it, and which is IR-active is 14.98352 µm, and hence this wavelength band is the largest contributor to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy from IR absorption.
At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program from data collected 1983-2004), at a photon wavelength of 14.98352 µm (the primary spectral absorption wavelength of CO2), the spectral radiance is only 5.43523 W / m^2 / sr / µm (integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm of 10.8773 W/sr-m^2 to fully take into account the absorption shoulders of CO2).
That means that the maximum that CO2 could absorb would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.
While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor calculated for CO2 because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.
Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. Remember, molecules which are already vibrationally excited can not absorb radiation with energy equivalent to the vibrational mode quantum state energy at which they are already excited, unless a degenerate vibrational mode quantum state exists to absorb that energy. That radiation passes the vibrationally excited molecule by.
That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.
CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.
The net effect of an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration is not a ‘trapping’ of energy in the atmosphere, it is a reduction in the extinction depth at the given wavelength. The radiation which would be absorbed at a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration is already absorbed long before it reaches space, and always has been… it’s just absorbed in a shorter distance with increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.
That energy thermalized increases Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which carries the energy stored in the specific heat capacity (and latent heat capacity in the case of water) of the atmospheric molecules high enough in the atmosphere where collisional processes no longer dominate, radiative processes do. This is why CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric coolant at and above TOA (TOA being where the atmospheric density reduces sufficiently that the atmosphere effectively loses its opacity for the given wavelength of radiation). A higher convection rate carries more energy to the upper atmosphere, and a higher concentration of molecules capable of emitting that radiation increases the photon emission flux (remember, the homonuclear diatomic molecules such as O2 and N2 have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot effectively emit nor absorb radiation unless perturbed by a collision), thus increasing the radiation emitted to space, which is by definition a cooling process.
Molecules capable of emitting [1] / Molecules incapable of emitting [2]
If [1]/[2] ↑, total emission to space ↑.
If [1]/[2] ↓, total emission to space ↓.
Thank you @LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks adding it to my library.
If you could explain this in more detail I’d appreciate it, didn’t quite connect the dots: The arrows are throwing me off.
Molecules capable of emitting [1] / Molecules incapable of emitting [2]
If [1]/[2] ↑, total emission to space ↑.
If [1]/[2] ↓, total emission to space ↓.
So the wording of the Prevost theory is completely wrong using heat incorrectly to explain thermodynamic energy transfer.
Or did someone sneak an incorrect interpretation of the Prevost theory to support climate science?
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_3KwRAAAAYAAJ/page/n9/mode/2up?view=theater
You can tell he’s going to be wrong right from the first sentence, when he calls ‘heat’ a fluid. LOL
That’s because the Prevost Theory of Exchanges (and Prevost’s Principle, it’s core tenet) assumes ‘heat’ to be a rarefied material substance with material properties such as elasticity, because it’s predicated upon Caloric Theory. It was 231 years ago, after all.
“It is certain that free radiant heat is a very rare fluid, the particles of which almost never collide with one another and do not disturb sensibly their mutual movements.”
He goes on from that on the very first page to begin discussing “the reflection of cold” being explained by this fluid he calls ‘heat’.
Strange that he outright states that his material fluid ‘heat’ “has all the properties of light”… yet he couldn’t make the connection to the fact that it is light. Photons in transit, an energy flux… the definition of ‘heat’.
He then goes on to discuss Caloric… something else he considers to be a fluid, another hypothesis chucked on the midden heap of scientific discovery.
Yeah, the climate alarmists still cling to these long-debunked notions put forth by Prevost, as means of advancing their CAGW communist agenda, no matter how silly it seems in light of modern advances in science. Science be damned, they’ll cling to whatever life raft they must to keep their scam afloat. LOL
Ah, the good old days… when you could be so wrong, be educated to become clergy… and still become a professor in Geneva with your ‘cutting edge’ “heat is a fluid, cold reflection is a thing” hypothesis. LOL
@ Kook
When it comes to Electric charge in Electrochemistry the:
Faraday is measured in Amperes per Hour.
Coulombs is measured in Amperes per second.
1 Faraday of Charge is required to raise 1 mole of electrons to 1 volt.
Converting Faradays into Coulombs into is a simple as multiplying by 3600
The deception has been uncovered. Dividing coulombs per electron by 3600 Is how we do it.
1 Faraday equates to 26.80148 Ampere Hours or Joules per Hour to raise 1 mole of electrons to 1 volt.. OR I.E 96485.33 Amperes per second to raise 1 mole of electrons to 1 volt.
Knowing this. I can now further simplify the work earlier into Number of Electrons divided by Moles of electrons multiplied by Faraday ampere hour charge
Multiply the 14.5189 moles of electrons in the Molar mass of Air by the 26.80148 Ampere Hours or Joules per Hour and we get 389.12 Ampere Hours or Joules per hour. I.e WATTS 287.8 Kelvin
This is just a roughie. I will tidy it up tomorrow and put it to you guys again. It’s after 1AM here.
This is out of Wiki. Pretty well sealed the deal for me.
“one coulomb is equal to approximately 1.036×10−5 mol × NA elementary charges.”
CD Marshall wrote:
“If you could explain this in more detail I’d appreciate it, didn’t quite connect the dots: The arrows are throwing me off.
Molecules capable of emitting [1] / Molecules incapable of emitting [2]
If [1]/[2] ↑, total emission to space ↑.
If [1]/[2] ↓, total emission to space ↓.”
If CO2 atmospheric concentration increases, not only does that increase the aggregate specific heat capacity of the overall atmosphere (thus a parcel of air is able to convect and / or advect more energy per parcel), but that higher concentration effectively increases the emitting ‘surface area’.
If there were only 1 CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, the effective emitting ‘surface area’ for CO2 would be that one molecule. Two molecules doubles that, four quadruples it, etc.
Think about it this way… we all know the air warms up during the daytime. Conduction of energy (that energy from the sun, absorbed by the planet’s surface) when air contacts the planet’s surface is the major reason air warms up.
Yet the major constituents of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) are homonuclear diatomics and thus cannot effectively radiate energy to cool down (unless their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision). They constitute ~99% of the atmosphere. How does that ~99% cool down?
Convection moves energy around in the atmosphere, but it cannot shed energy to space. Conduction depends upon thermal contact with other matter and since space is essentially a vacuum, conduction cannot shed energy to space… this leaves only radiative emission. The only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space.
But N2 and O2 cannot effectively radiatively emit because, being homonuclear diatomic molecules, they have no net magnetic dipole. Only when the molecule simultaneously collides with something else (perturbing its net-zero magnetic dipole) and a resonant photon incides upon the molecule does it have any chance of absorbing radiation, and even then it doesn’t happen every single time. Same goes for radiative emission, it requires collision which perturbs the molecule’s net-zero magnetic dipole. That’s why homonuclear diatomic vibrational mode quantum states are meta-stable and relatively long-lived.
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~99% of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor in the lower atmosphere and the largest contributor in the upper atmosphere, water vapor being the main contributor in the lower atmosphere) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.
So, far from being ‘greenhouse gases’ which ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere, those radiative gases actually shed energy from the atmosphere to space. They are net atmospheric coolants.
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse gases’.
Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.042%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~95.94 – 99.74% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.
So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolant gases (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.
CAGW is based upon a flawed understanding of physics, first promulgated by Svante Arrhenius back in 1896, before we even had a firm grasp on molecular physics and quantum mechanics. It was before the discovery of the photon, before the discovery of the electron, before the discovery of the proton, before the discovery of the neutron, before the discovery of atomic nuclei, before the Planck blackbody formula, before Special and General Relativity, obviously long before we discovered exactly why atoms and molecules emit at specific spectra, and a full decade before Einstein fully explained the discrepancies up to that date between Equipartition Theorem theory and empirical observation, ushering in a new quantum theory of matter. Arrhenius didn’t even know enough about molecular physics to call it “CO2”, he called it “carbonic acid”! Further, his experiment failed to account for water vapor, used 9.7 µm radiation (while CO2 absorbs mainly at 14.98352 µm) and he over-estimated the absorption coefficient of CO2 by 253%, forcing him to later revise his estimate (which was still wrong) of temperature forcing from CO2. Yet his flawed experiment is still touted by the climate alarmists as their basis for alarm and hence their basis for tearing down our modern society, deindustrialization and depopulation of the planet.
Arrhenius didn’t have the technical knowledge at the time to reason his way through the problem properly, as we did immediately above.
So, if the climate alarmists were actually serious about cooling the planet, rather than their commie machinations, I’ve provided them 3 options:
1) Increase atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase the specific heat capacity of the bulk air and to provide more emitters in the upper atmosphere to increase convection and dump more energy to space.
2) Dig deep E-W furrows in the ground, deep enough that gravitational auto-compression puts a high enough percentage of CO2 molecules into the net-cooling mode via t-v collisions… especially so for {v3(1)} → {v20(2)} 1063.7 cm-1 (9.40115 µm) emission. That’s higher energy than 14.98352 µm emission and it’s in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, so it has a nearly unfettered path out to space. It requires a higher molecular kinetic energy and thus more gravitational auto-compression and thus a deeper furrow, though.
3) Water, water everywhere. Water literally acts as a refrigerant in the troposphere, in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense.
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
We live in the equivalent of the evaporator of a gigantic world-sized A/C unit. Water is the refrigerant, the working fluid. The upper atmosphere is the condenser. Convection stands in as the A/C compressor to move the working fluid through the A/C unit.
2) and 3) would work especially well… want to cool an area off? Either douse it with water or uncover your furrows to allow radiation to escape to space. Want to warm an area up? Stop dousing it with water or cover your furrows so radiation cannot escape to space.
LOL@KKK you have mentioned several times that Kirchoff’s radiation law has been invalidated. The only two sources that I have been able to ascertain are Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen Crothers. If you know of other sources could you please provide links if possible.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Climate Heretic wrote:
“LOL@KKK you have mentioned several times that Kirchoff’s radiation law has been invalidated. The only two sources that I have been able to ascertain are Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen Crothers. If you know of other sources could you please provide links if possible.”
As Einstein stated when it was reported to him that 100 authors had attacked his Relativity theory (paraphrased):
“If it were wrong, then only one author would have been enough!”
Kirchhoff, in attempting to expand Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation from an idealized blackbody case to all materials, cheated (whether he knew he was doing so or not is moot, he was doing so)… in a perfectly-reflecting cavity, he included a small piece of graphite or carbon as a thermalizer (Planck did the same, calling it a “catalyst”)… a perfectly-reflecting cavity cannot exhibit a Planckian blackbody curve except for that thermalizer being present, because the radiation cannot equilibrate. So in fact, Kirchhoff was working with the idealized blackbody case all along! Thus, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation doesn’t extend beyond the idealized blackbody case, and only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium, and given that a close approximation (for a certain range of wavelengths) of an idealized blackbody cavity can only be obtained in a laboratory, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only applies in that case.
The fact that you can find paper after paper discussing violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation means it cannot be a law… it is at best a hypothesis, and given that it only really describes idealized blackbody objects, and given that idealized blackbody objects are idealizations which cannot exist and which are provable contradictions, this is akin to claiming that a ‘physical law’ which states that rainbow glitter-farting unicorns only fart rainbow glitter when flying should be taken seriously.
And in other news…
Finally found it… as I promised earlier, here’s what I was talking about in a prior post, the ‘transition temperature’ of CO2.
The data below peals the death knell for CAGW. You’re welcome.
In dealing with solely translational mode energy and neglecting vibrational mode and rotational mode energy for the moment, the Equipartition Theorem states that molecules in thermal equilibrium have the same average energy associated with each of three independent degrees of freedom, equal to:
3/2 kT per molecule, where k = Boltzmann’s Constant
3/2 RT per mole, where R = gas constant
Thus the Equipartition Theorem equation:
KE_avg = 3/2 kT
… serves well in the definition of kinetic energy (which we sense as temperature).
It does not do as well at defining the specific heat capacity of polyatomic gases, simply because it does not take into account the increase of internal molecular energy via vibrational mode and rotational mode excitation (specific heat capacity). Energy imparted to the molecule via either photon absorption or collisional energetic exchange can excite those vibrational mode or rotational mode quantum states, increasing the total molecular energy E_tot, but not affecting temperature at all. Since we’re only looking at translational mode energy at the moment (and not specific heat capacity); and internal molecular energy is not accounted for in measuring temperature (which is a measure of translational mode energy only), this long-known and well-proven equation fits our purpose.
Our thermometers are an instantaneous average of molecular kinetic energy. If they could respond fast enough to register every single molecule impinging upon the thermometer probe, we’d see temperature wildly jumping up and down, with a distribution equal to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function. In other words, at any given measured temperature, some molecules will be moving faster (higher temperature) and some slower (lower temperature), with an equilibrium distribution (Planckian) curve.
The Equipartition Theorem states that in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions all molecules, regardless of molecular weight, will have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same temperature. For higher atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving slower; for lower atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving faster; but their kinetic (translational mode) energy will all be the same at the same temperature.
Therefore, utilizing the equation above, at a temperature of 288 K, the average thermal energy of a molecule is 0.03722663337910374 eV. Again, this is the average… there is actually an equilibrium distribution of energies and thereby molecular speeds.
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
But if those molecules are at the exact same temperature, they’ll have exactly the same translational mode energy.
This energy at exactly 288 K is equivalent to the energy of a 33.3050 µm photon.
If two molecules collide, their translational energy is cumulative, dependent upon angle of collision. In mathematically describing the kinematics of a binary molecular collision, one can consider the relative motion of the molecules in a spatially-fixed 6N-dimensional phase space frame of reference (lab frame) which consists of 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components, to avoid the vagaries of interpreting energy transfer considered from other reference frames.
Simplistically, for a head-on collision between only two molecules, this is described by the equation:
KE = (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 1] + (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 2]
The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function, taking into account 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components:
You may surmise, “But at 288 K, the combined kinetic energy of two molecules in a head-on collision isn’t sufficient to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state! It requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon to vibrationally excite CO2, and the combined translational mode energy of two molecules colliding head-on at 288 K is only equivalent to the energy of a 16.6525 µm photon!”
True, but you’ve not taken into account some mitigating factors…
1) We’re not talking about just translational mode energy, we’re talking about E_tot, the total molecular energy, including translational mode, rotational mode, vibrational mode and electronic mode. At 288 K, nearly all CO2 molecules will be excited in the rotational mode quantum state, increasing CO2’s E_tot. The higher a molecule’s E_tot, the less total energy necessary to excite any of its other modes.
2) Further, the Boltzmann Factor shows that at 288 K, ~10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.
N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction
1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1
The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrational mode quantum state.
Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is vibrationally excited via t-v (translational-vibrational) processes at 288 K. You’ll note this equates to 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy (and higher concentration) N2{v1(1)} molecules to CO2 molecules excited to their CO2{v20(2)} vibrational mode quantum state (and the CO2 molecule got to that vibrational mode quantum state from the CO2{v20(0)} ground state by a prior collision), exciting the CO2 to its {v3(1)} vibrational mode, whereupon it can drop to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules).
The energy flow from translational modes of molecules to N2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to CO2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to radiation constitutes a cooling process.
3) The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function gives a wide translational mode equilibrium distribution. In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires a minimum of the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s.
Remember I wrote above:
––––––––––
For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s
For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s
––––––––––
For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461 at 288 K. In other words, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.
Thus at ~288 K and higher temperature, the combined translational mode energy of colliding atmospheric molecules begins to significantly vibrationally excite CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
As CO2 concentration increases, the population of molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.
This is why I state that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.
In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
A better graphic:
You can get the Maxwell Speed Distribution graph yourself by downloading the Wolfram Player, then downloading the TheMaxwellSpeedDistribution.cdf file.
In undergrad I wrote a program to collide N spheres trapped in a box using Newtonian Mechanics, with the velocity distribution of the gas being initially unitary, but randomly directed vectors. After a few seconds the sphere’s would all bounce in to each other and redistribute their velocities according whatever Newtonian Mechanics necessitated. It was a graphical program and you could watch the little spheres bounce around…the idea being that this was modelling a gas trapped in a box.
After a few seconds with a few hundred spheres colliding into each other a few million times, analysis of the new velocity distribution showed a PERFECT Maxwellian Speed Distribution. I wrote a least-squares solver to the distribution, and the errors on the fitting parameters were like 10^-9 (one billionth).
TLDR: An ideal gas, and the Maxwellian Speed Distribution, is simply Newtonian collision mechanics with no elasticity.
You could add in to that program elasticity in the form of a small amount of radiation emitted every time two particles (spheres) collide, depending on their emissivity or something. Then the gas would “cool”.
Man I bet I could get way more particles into that program with today’s computers and parallelized code on my 48-core system.
I had actually added in gravity to that program too, and if you started the particles off with zero velocity, then they would fall and collide with and bounce off of the ground, and then each other given that some some particles would always be “above” each other at random offsets, thus allowing lateral transfer of energy and thus mixing of momentum, etc.
LOL@KKK
You said:
“As Einstein stated when it was reported to him that 100 authors had attacked his Relativity theory (paraphrased):
“If it were wrong, then only one author would have been enough!””
Irrelevant to the question asked.
You said:
“Kirchhoff, in attempting to expand Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation from an idealized blackbody case to all materials, cheated (whether he knew he was doing so or not is moot, he was doing so)… in a perfectly-reflecting cavity, he included a small piece of graphite or carbon as a thermalizer (Planck did the same, calling it a “catalyst”)… a perfectly-reflecting cavity cannot exhibit a Planckian blackbody curve except for that thermalizer being present, because the radiation cannot equilibrate. So in fact, Kirchhoff was working with the idealized blackbody case all along! Thus, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation doesn’t extend beyond the idealized blackbody case, and only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium, and given that a close approximation (for a certain range of wavelengths) of an idealized blackbody cavity can only be obtained in a laboratory, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only applies in that case.”
This is just you discussing Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation saying it’s wrong. Have you written a paper saying it’s wrong or do you know of other people writing a paper saying it’s wrong?
You said:
“The fact that you can find paper after paper discussing violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation means it cannot be a law… it is at best a hypothesis, and given that it only really describes idealized blackbody objects, and given that idealized blackbody objects are idealizations which cannot exist and which are provable contradictions, this is akin to claiming that a ‘physical law’ which states that rainbow glitter-farting unicorns only fart rainbow glitter when flying should be taken seriously.”
Then what are the names of these papers other than Robitaille and Crothers?
You said
“And in other news…”
Not what I asked for. I reiterate, what are the names of these papers other Robitaille and Crothers ones?
Regards
Climate Heretic
I’m not here to service your every request, Pal. Go DYOFDW. The last part of my prior post was in relation to something discussed prior. Science is done by attempting to falsify every assumption, every hypothesis, every law. You’re not doing science, you’re doing the opposite of it… defending the status quo while apparently refusing to do the research to find out for yourself.
Had you bothered to check, Robitaille comes to his conclusion not just via gedanken means, but empirically.
Even Planck tacitly admitted to the non-universality of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. Planck used the coefficients of emission and absorption, which correspond to emissivity and absorptivity, writing: K_v = e_v/a_v. In Section 48 of his book Planck admits that his equation in Section 26 cannot be used when e_v = 0 and a_v = 0 because it results in 0/0 which is indeterminate, just as Robitaille has argued.
Planck erred in failing to properly validate Kirchhoff’s Law (from which he derived his equation)… his attempt at validating Kirchhoff’s Law in The Theory of Heat Radiation is filled with errors… he had to redefine blackbodies, he ignored absorptivity at the interface of the blackbody, he used polarized light (when thermal radiation is never polarized), and he, like Kirchhoff, cheated a bit by using a small chunk of graphite as a thermalizer (what he called a ‘catalyst’) in a perfectly reflecting cavity (which cannot otherwise exhibit a blackbody spectrum).
The thing is, at thermodynamic equilibrium, emissivity and absorptivity are zero by their very definitions… and Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium, so the one place that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation applies, its result is indeterminate, as Planck admits and as Robitaille addresses.
If you doubt me, look up the definition of ‘thermodynamic equilbrium’… it is defined as a quiescent state. There is no energy density gradient, there is no impetus for photon generation, there is no chemical potential gradient by which photon absorption can take place.
For two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no absorption or emission takes place. The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point, no energy can be transferred in or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work. Photon Helmholtz Free Energy is zero, they can do no work. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory… deny it and you deny wide swaths of long-known and rigorously empirically-validated science.
Now that’s one I don’t have to look up.
Well said.
{sigh} You could, you know, DYOFDW, Nepal. There are many search engines via which you could do so.
Thermodynamics postulates that all non-conserved properties averaged over a certain time scale t_TD, which we call the thermodynamic time scale, eventually stop varying and remain constant for as long as the system remains isolated. The quiescent state of an isolated system in which all properties remain constant on the t_TD time scale is called the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Isolated composite systems tend toward a quiescent asymptotic state called thermodynamic equilibrium, in which the free variables assume constant values specified as solutions of an extremum problem. Otherwise known as the Entropy Maximum Principle.
The definition of emissivity:
The ratio of the total emissive power of a body to the total emissive power of a perfectly black body at that temperature.
The definition of absorptivity:
The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power.
We can ascertain that emissivity of a graybody object is zero at thermodynamic equilibrium thusly:
While an idealized blackbody object emits (and absorbs) without regard to the energy density gradient, this is not so for a graybody object.
As ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody total emissive power as compared to idealized blackbody object emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Helmholtz Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Helmholtz Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
This coincides with standard cavity theory… applying cavity theory outside a cavity, for two graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no absorption or emission takes place. The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point, no energy can be transferred in or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work. Photon Helmholtz Free Energy is zero, they can do no work. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object.
Even Planck tacitly admitted to the non-universality of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. Planck used the coefficients of emission and absorption, which correspond to emissivity and absorptivity, writing: K_v = e_v/a_v. In Section 48 of his book, Planck admits that this equation (in Section 26) cannot be used when e_v = 0 and a_v = 0 because it results in 0/0 which is indeterminate.
The thing is, at thermodynamic equilibrium, emissivity and absorptivity are zero for graybody objects by their very definitions… and Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium, so for the one condition to which Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation applies, its result is indeterminate for graybody objects, as Planck tacitly admits.
Idealized blackbody objects can never attain the quiescent state of thermodynamic equilibrium except at 0 K because they emit and absorb without regard to the energy density gradient (all idealized blackbody objects emit when > 0 K)… one of the contradictions which make idealized blackbody objects an impossibility, especially in light of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation which postulates that emissivity and absorptivity of idealized blackbody objects are equal at thermodynamic equilibrium.
Except emissivity of an idealized blackbody object is pinned to 1 all the time by definition, and absorptivity of an idealized blackbody object is pinned to 1 all the time by definition (idealized blackbody objects maximally emit and absorb)… so Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation describes the definition of idealized blackbody objects in only one case (at thermodynamic equilibrium), while that definition applies to idealized blackbody objects all the time. 1 does equal 1, after all.
So this law cannot be a law… it describes objects (idealized blackbody objects) which do not and cannot exist, and for graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, its result is indeterminate. It is, at best, a hypothesis. A hypothesis which has failed the most basic of tests in the case of graybody objects and which cannot apply to idealized blackbody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium because idealized blackbody objects can never attain the quiescent state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
One might as well be making up ‘physical laws’ about rainbow glitter-farting unicorns.
or as Richard Feynman. said:
LOL@KKK
You said:
I’m not here to service your every request, Pal. Go DYOFDW. The last part of my prior post was in relation to something discussed prior.”
I do my own research and I only asked you for one simple thing, “can you name one other paper”. Yet you allude to paper after paper. Surely you would have been able to do that, but obviously not. Why? because you do not have any references to any other paper and if you did then it would have been very simple for you to cut and paste one reference, but you did not.
You said:
“Science is done by attempting to falsify every assumption, every hypothesis, every law.”
Tell me something I do not know
You said:
“You’re not doing science, you’re doing the opposite of it… defending the status quo while apparently refusing to do the research to find out for yourself.”
1) You do not know what I’m doing, so do not pretend you do.
2) You do not know where I stand in regards to the status quo.
3) As I said before I do my own research.
4) I’m not your PAL.
You are a condescending and arrogant person. If you were a truly kind and helpful person and really determined to break the status quo and advance the new paradigm. Then you would have posted a link to at least one referenced paper. I would then have thanked you for your time and effort. However, you did not.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Climate Heretic wrote:
“Surely you would have been able to do that, but obviously not.”
Already done. Planck, who tacitly corroborated what Robitaille wrote. Just because you don’t like the answer and thereby ignore it doesn’t change reality, libtard.
You come onto the comments section and demand that I answer your questions when you could just as easily look the answers up for yourself, and you have the unmitigated temerity to call me “condescending and arrogant”?
Then, when I provide a detailed explanation, including how Planck tacitly corroborated what Robitaille wrote about, you completely ignore that and claim I didn’t provide you an answer because I didn’t DYOFDW and provide a link to a famous book written by a famous physicist (Planck)?
I’m not your search engine, Pal, and I can tell you why you’re wrong, but I can’t understand it for you… that hard work of arriving at an understanding of the principles is entirely up to you, and you seem to be completely recalcitrant to even do the simple work of looking up a famous book by a famous physicist (Planck). I even provided you the sections of the book to look in, but you can’t be troubled to even lift a finger to educate yourself.
I’ll not spoon-feed you just so you can turn around and spit it out while you claim “You’re not spoon-feeding me and how dare you not spoon-feed me!“.
GFY. Pal. LOL
You said and I quote
“The fact that you can find paper after paper discussing violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation means it cannot be a law”
You still have not named one reference paper. Whether Planck tacitly implied that the law was not valid is not a refutation of the law.
I’m not asking you questions about this subject. I’m only asking you for one reference to at least one paper that invalidates Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation other than Pierre or Crothers.
Grow up. Your ranting and raving is unbecoming. Show some decency and provide one paper that invalidates Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation other than Pierre or Crothers.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS Sorry I should have said “Could you please provide one link to a paper that invalidates Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation other than Pierre or Crothers. It would be very much appreciated.
Climate Heretic wrote:
“Whether Planck tacitly implied that the law was not valid is not a refutation of the law.”
It is noted that you don’t understand the definition of the word “law” in this context.
As to the “paper after paper discussing violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation”, again, DYOFDW. Are you incapable of using a search engine?
And again, the fact that Planck tacitly admitted that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation arrived at an indeterminate result for absorptivity of zero and emissivity of zero means that at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects the law cannot apply to graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium… their emissivity and absorptivity at thermodynamic equilibrium are zero as I prove above, so Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation gets an indeterminate result in this case.
And in the case of idealized blackbody objects, their emissivity and absorptivity are pinned at 1 all the time by the very definition of idealized blackbody objects (idealized blackbody objects maximally emit and absorb without regard to the energy density gradient), so what is Kirchhoff’a Law of Thermal Radiation even describing in this case?
So it cannot apply to graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium (indeterminate result) and it does not apply to idealized blackbody objects (emissivity and absorptivity are always one, and idealized blackbody objects can never attain thermodynamic equilibrium)… so you’ll get right on detailing when, exactly, it does apply.
Hint: It doesn’t. It’s a flawed ‘law’ that by all rights should be deemed an invalidated hypothesis. LOL
Learn to read for comprehension and you won’t embarrass yourself quite so much. LOL
LOL@KKK
Obviously you cannot produce One reference paper. That speaks volumes about you.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS Could you please provide one link to a paper that invalidates Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation other than Pierre or Crothers. It would be very much appreciated.
Hi LOL
Mate I just looked up how the charge of 1.602E-19 Coulombs per electron was determined.
It appears that the end result was amount of charge required to “off set gravity” and cause the very fine spray of a droplet of oil to be suspended in air. I.e to negate gravity on Earth..
Thus the reference to adjusting the joules per electron is backed up or in reality comes from Millikan and Fletchers work when comparing to Venus.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Millikan+oil+droplet+gravity+charge&t=chromentp&atb=v314-1&ia=web
L@KKK
It is interesting to read you agree with Pierre-Marie Robitaille on the subject of Kirchhoff’s law.
Have you studied more subjects he discusses in his papers or in the videos on his Sky Scholar channel?
What does Joe think of all of this? And is Stephen Crothers still a mother fucker?
Here is the revised piece on the Electrochemical aspect of our atmosphere.
Climate Heretic wrote:
“Obviously you cannot produce One reference paper. That speaks volumes about you.”
Already done. Planck, who corroborated what Robitaille wrote. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t change reality.
That you cannot or will not use a search engine well enough to find those papers speaks volumes about you.
That you’ve failed to explicate exactly under what conditions Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation applies, considering that it cannot apply to graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium because emissivity and absorptivity go to zero for graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium as I prove above; and considering that it cannot apply to idealized blackbody objects because they do not and cannot exist, nor can they even attain the quiescent state of thermodynamic equilibrium except at 0 K because they emit without regard to the energy density gradient when at temperatures above 0 K, and even then absorptivity and emissivity for idealized blackbody objects is pinned to 1 by definition at all times so Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation describes nothing new or novel about them… that speaks volumes about you as well. It says that you’re so far out of your depth that you can’t perform that explication. LOL
Richard:
Must I agree with all that Robitaille write if I agree with one thing he writes? No, I mustn’t. You know, small-minded people like you said the same sort of things about Einstein when he introduced Relativity. Perhaps you should look at what I’ve written, do a bit of research on your own, discover that I’m correct, then apologize to the world for wasting its oxygen lo these many years. LOL
Nepal wrote:
““Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission asserts that, given sufficient dimensions to neglect diffraction, the radiation contained within arbitrary cavities must always be black, or normal, dependent only upon the frequency of observation and the temperature, while independent of the nature of the wall”
First of all, that’s not what we call Kirchhoff’s law. Kirchhoff’s law is that a body in thermal equilibrium has equal absorptivity and emissivity at each wavelength.”
Perhaps you should learn to read for comprehension, Nepal. There’s a reason Kirchhoff, in attempting to extend Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all materials, had to include a graphite or carbon thermalizer… because in perfectly reflecting cavities, it cannot exhibit a blackbody curve except for that thermalizer being present. So in reality, Kirchhoff was working with the idealized blackbody case at all times… he didn’t extend Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all materials, indeed he didn’t ‘extend’ it to any materials except a blackbody cavity because of that thermalizer.
Planck did the same thing, included a thermalizer, what he called a ‘catalyst’. The two of them together have done more to confuse the weak-minded than any other scientists in history. LOL
Kirchhoff’s Law:
“For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power.”
Jopo wrote:
“Here is the revised piece on the Electrochemical aspect of our atmosphere.”
You keep at it, Jopo, and you’ll have Nepal and Climate Heretic bashing you like they’re doing Robitaille. LOL
I’ve found that taking a person step-by-step through the calculations, breaking it down to the smallest steps and explaining each step, makes it easier to follow. Remember, you’re going to have to convince liberals… with little logical capacity, with a 4th grade reading level and with only the most basic of math skills… if you wish to change the paradigm. So make it easy for them to perform each step. Explain each step in detail. Make them feel a sense of pride in being able to complete the steps you take to completion, “Look, Ma! I added them sums real good! I are a jeeneeooos!” LOL
Nepal wrote:
“Any closed cavity at equilibrium will have blackbody radiation inside, regardless of the nature of the walls.”
Wrong. If what you claim is true, MRI could not work as we know it does. Did you not even attempt to falsify your erroneous belief before you started spouting off about the topic? LOL
A perfectly-reflecting cavity does not allow the radiation to equilibrate to a blackbody curve… which you just admitted, so you’ve just contradicted yourself. Bit embarrassing, that. LOL
Any graybody material at thermodynamic equilibrium is, by definition, a perfect reflector, as I show above. That pretty much scotches your babble. LOL
Question: How exactly does one determine the spectra in a fully-closed cavity? Or did you just pull that out of your coal chute? Kirchhoff (and Planck, and Bunsen) worked with cavities which had a hole, lined up with a prism so they could see the light being emitted or a thermometer so they could measure it. LOL
Show me where Robitaille uses a “super hot metal stick waving around an open hole NOT in equilibrium”:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1109/TPS.2003.820958
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26842354_Kirchhoff%27s_Law_of_Thermal_Emission_150_Years/fulltext/57aab31408ae42ba52ac7e1d/Kirchhoffs-Law-of-Thermal-Emission-150-Years.pdf?origin=publication_detail
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26414792_An_Analysis_of_Universality_in_Blackbody_Radiation/fulltext/0e5f9e2ff0c41c4932dc6612/An-Analysis-of-Universality-in-Blackbody-Radiation.pdf?origin=publication_detail
In fact, Robitaille was replicating an experiment done by De Vos in 1954 (“Evaluation of the Quality of a Blackbody” in the journal Physica), in which De Vos attempted to judge the quality of a cavity by showing that the cavities appear to be increasingly blackbody as the ratio of the length of the hole in the material to its diameter is increased. De Vos only showed the degree to which the surface of the cavity was specular or white, not whether the surface actually emitted photons at the correct temperature.
So while De Vos’s paper is a classic in blackbody cavity research, in fact it only provides limited insight into radiation in a cavity.
So while you’re blathering on about “a hot stick waving it outside a cavity with a hole”, you’re unknowingly bashing a classic paper in blackbody cavity research… another faux pas by you. That’s embarrassing, eh? LOL
So Robitaille replicated De Vos’ experiment and showed that cavity radiation absolutely depended upon the cavity wall material, which means either you didn’t read Robitaille’s paper, or you were incapable of understanding it. LOL
Yes, Robitaille and Crothers are a team, and they’re both entirely full of shit…I destroyed Crothers two weeks ago when he came on the PSI TNT radio with us, and he gets all of his ideas from Robitaille. They are 100% not trustworthy, and even if they ever said anything correct, it would only be by accident, or, for the purpose of placing a lie right next to it.
If you missed it, this was Crothers/Robitaille’s “debunk” of a blackhole, paraphrasing:
“A blackhole is supposed to be supermassive and therefore is the orbital barycenter of any non-blackhole material object orbiting around it. However, the barycenter is the center of mass of the orbital system and is only a fictional point where no mass actually is, and therefore if there is supposed to be a blackhole there which means that a mass should be there, then this contradicts itself because there’s not supposed to be any mass at the orbital barycenter.”
You see how fucking retarded that is? If they’re willing to say something like that, you can’t trust a single world they say elsewise.
Nepal wrote:
“The cavity used in MRI are not closed, or in equilibrium.
A perfectly reflecting cavity would not achieve equilibrium, luckily a perfectly reflecting material does not exist.”
No cavity is closed… again, how does one measure the spectra in a closed cavity? Name a few of these ‘closed-cavity’ experiments… they must be numerous, with you banging on about them, right? LOL
A “perfectly reflecting material” absolutely does exist… graybody material at thermodynamic equilibrium is perfectly reflecting by definition, as I show above. You’ve not refuted it because you cannot. To do so, you’d have to violate the fundamental physical laws by claiming that a graybody object at thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs / emits and thus that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process and thus that entropy doesn’t change even in the face of this radiative exchange.
There are superconducting microwave cavities that are used in particle accelerators and quantum experiments with quality factors approaching the billions.
For frequencies below the plasma frequency, a plasma is also perfectly reflecting… look up “total reflection” and “ionospheric skip”.
Nepal wrote:
“If cavity has a hole in it, the radiation is not perfect blackbody. As the size of the hole gets smaller and smaller, the cavity radiation approaches blackbody radiation: first 90%, then 99%, then 99.9%… No matter the material, if the hole is small enough, it becomes perfect blackbody radiation. This is experimental fact.”
It’s not the size of the hole, it’s the ratio of hole depth to hole diameter. And that only because it limits the radiation that can exit the cavity to a narrower and narrower angle.
That doesn’t imply that “a closed cavity will be a perfect blackbody no matter the material” as you claim. As even you admit, a perfectly-reflecting cavity does not and cannot equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody curve, which is why Kirchhoff (and Planck) had to place a thermalizer into their cavities… and in so doing, they didn’t extend Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all materials because they continued working only on the idealized blackbody case because of that thermalizer.
For thermodynamic considerations it makes no difference if the body is hollow or not. Equilibrium is equilibrium and should exist outside and inside. A small hole is how one determines what’s happening inside the cavity… again, how is a spectra even measured in your ‘closed cavity’? Magic?
The production of a blackbody spectrum absolutely requires the presence of a vibrational lattice and is hence intrinsically tied to the nature of the walls, contrary to Kirchhoff’s claim. That’s kind of why, after all, a perfectly-reflecting surface cannot equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody curve.
Many stars emit approximately to a blackbody…one of the reasons we used to talk about was simply because they effectively are a “tiny hole” in radiative energetic terms…the amount of light they emit is insignificant compared to the amount of energy which they contain. I always thought it a neat idea. …I think there was also something about the amount of light they absorb from outside being negligible compared to the amount of light they emit. Basically a star is somewhat neat thermal equilibrium…but of course they aren’t completely and have absorption lines and Balmer discontinuities, etc., and so they also deviate considerably from a blackbody emission.
The best “laboratory” measurement of the best Planck Curve ever recorded is that of the cosmic microwave background…smaller error bars on the fit than ANY laboratory blackbody. Really impressive.
Crothers and Robitaille say that the cosmic microwave background is “from hydroxyl bonds in water in Earth’s oceans plus the COBE satellite had design flaws.”
Really impressive that a design flaw and water on Earth at ~286K produces, purely by experimental accident from a satellite not looking at Earth, a perfect Planck spectrum at 2.7K just like radio telescopes say is there. I guess all the satellite does is run a C++ script to produce a Planck curve and returns THAT to the operators? lol
Joseph E Postma wrote:
“You see how fucking retarded that is?”
Yeah, that’s pretty silly. The orbital barycenter of Earth / Sun is very close to the center of the sun. Definitely invariant-mass matter there. A simple look at the masses of the Earth and Sun and the distance between Earth and Sun would ascertain that.
r_1 = a / (1 + (m_1 / m_2))
Where:
r_1 = distance from m_1 to the barycenter (m)
a = distance between the center of the two bodies (m)
m_1 & m_2 = masses of the bodies (kg)
However, I needn’t agree with all they write. That’s the beauty of science. If it fits the facts, is testable, is falsifiable and is able to be mathematically described, that’s a pretty good indication that it represents reality.
I don’t have to trust a thing they say, I can do my own thinking, my own research, my own gedanken experiments. If what they say makes sense, I attempt to falsify it first. If I’m unable, I have no choice but to tentatively accept it while I continue attempting to falsify it.
Believe me, I’m trying to falsify Robitaille’s claim that the quality of a blackbody cavity depends upon cavity material… I haven’t been able to do so yet.
Oh! I found a cavity which is closed… a radar resonator. Not a blackbody spectrum as Nepal claims. Specifically designed not to be a blackbody spectrum… it is a resonator and a bandpass filter for radar. Energy is drawn out of the cavity via a wire loop, and put into the cavity from an internal triode vacuum tube. That pretty much destroys his claim that a closed cavity will always have a blackbody spectrum regardless of cavity material.
There’s a threshold of full of shitness that tips it over the edge and splats all over. Some people ride the line very close, saying a lot of things that might make sense, but balancing with outlandish BS or sophistry. They do it in order to sow confusion and sophistry and to destroy intelligence.
Crothers and Robitaille are entirely beyond the edge. When they say things as stupid as I’ve related above, it is clear they’re not in the slightest engaged in critical thinking, but pure unadulterated BS generation. They’re not worth discussing…only making fun of.
“It’s not the size of the hole, it’s the ratio of hole depth to hole diameter. And that only because it limits the radiation that can exit the cavity to a narrower and narrower angle.”
That’s what Nepal was referring to.
Take a break, LOL.
One more…
Nepal wrote:
“A perfectly reflecting cavity would not achieve equilibrium, luckily a perfectly reflecting material does not exist.”
If Nepal has a fiber optic internet connection, his own internet connection is laughing at him. Fiber optic cables keep light in the core of the fiber via total internal reflection, making the fiber act as a waveguide.
His own computer screen is laughing at him… the LED backlights rely upon total internal reflection to confine the LED light to the acrylic glass panel, then scatters it by etching one side of the pane, giving an approximately uniform luminous emittance.
His own eyes are laughing at him… the view at the angle between the iris and cornea (used in diagnosing glaucoma) is blocked by total internal reflection, so a gonioscope suppresses this by replacing the air with a higher-index medium, allowing transmission at oblique incidence, typically followed by reflection in a mirror which itself may be using total internal reflection.
Oh look… a completely closed cavity using total internal reflection which doesn’t exhibit a blackbody spectrum… useful as a laser cavity in a similar vein to the radar cavity I discussed prior:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1364/OE.20.016033
That proves Nepal wrong on the count of his claim that a completely closed cavity always exhibits a blackbody spectrum regardless of cavity material, and on the count of his claim that perfectly reflective materials don’t exist.
Total internal reflection has only been known about since 1611… so it’s understandable that Nepal’s not heard of it yet. LOL
It can’t be reflective…it needs to absorb. I thought that was understood.
You’re taking a break LOL.
It’s all there in black and white, mathematically and definitionally proved out, Nepal. I welcome your attempt at refutation. Show your work.
I don’t subscribe to the Robitaille / Crothers working hypothesis that the CMB doesn’t exist and is solely an Earthly water microwave emission artifact, but they’re not the only ones to have seen artifacts in the CMB signal and there may be another explanation…. there’s still so much we don’t know and don’t understand.
Ait Mansour El Houssain
SOLEIL synchrotron
https://www.researchgate.net/post/CMB_Anomaly_Cosmic_Microwave_Background_Symmetries_and_Inaumogienity
Demetris Christopoulos
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_CMB_radiation_just_microwave_radiation_from_the_water_of_earths_oceans
Water absorbs (and emits) in the microwave… it may be that the signal of emission from Earth’s water is boosting the anisotropy of the signal our satellites see of the CMB, leaving an ‘imprint’ or ‘reflection’ on the CMB.
Which means we’d have to put our CMB-measuring satellites very far out from Earth to avoid that interference.
So it may very well be that the CMB is as I’ve postulated… a ‘fun-house mirror’ of photons from stars and planets inside and stars and planets now outside our cosmological particle horizon (emitted while still inside our cosmological particle horizon), effectively ‘smeared’ and distorted via anisotropy variations from other nearer emitters and via gravitational lensing.
IOW…. “I could, but I won’t… because I can’t.”.
To disprove graybody objects being perfect reflectors at thermodynamic equilibrium, you must claim that graybody objects emit and absorb at thermodynamic equilibrium (in direct contradiction to the S-B equation and the definition of ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’), you must thus claim that energy in the form of radiation can flow at thermodynamic equilibrium (in direct contradiction to 2LoT), you must thus claim that radiative transfer of energy is an idealized reversible process (in direct contradiction to reality… all real-world processes are irreversible processes, idealized reversible processes are idealizations) and hence you must claim that entropy doesn’t change when energy is transferred via radiation (again in direct contradiction to 2LoT).
I showed you a radar resonator which is a closed cavity… why would they put a hole in a radar resonator? They extract the energy from the cavity via a wire loop. This disproves your contention that all closed cavities exhibit a blackbody spectrum, as do all resonators and band-pass filter cavities.
And of course, the fact that Kirchhoff’s Law only applies for graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, and the fact that at thermodynamic equilibrium (per 2LoT, the S-B equation and a whole host of other long-known scientific principles) that graybody objects are by definition perfect reflectors means Kirchhoff’s Law, in the one condition which it applies to graybody objects, arrives at an indeterminate result… that alone invalidates it.
And for idealized blackbody objects, given that their emissivity and absorptivity are pinned at 1 at all times by definition (idealized blackbody objects maximally emit and absorb without regard to the energy density gradient), Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t describe anything new about them. Nor can idealized blackbody objects actually attain the quiescent state of thermodynamic equilibrium except at 0 K (idealized blackbody objects emit > 0K and absorb all radiation incident upon them)… emission and absorption isn’t quiescence.
But you “won’t” attempt a refutation due to your ‘high moral standards’ or somesuch.
Those skilled in the art of kook wrangling recognize that you’re attempting to justify your inability to offer a refutation, putting that justification in the best light possible to save face as you retreat in the face of superior reasoning ability.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to assuage your feelings of inadequacy in light of having run up against superior reason ability is fine with me… just don’t expect anyone else to buy it. LOL
My “unique interpretation” of equilibrium is the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium. As is my “unique interpretation” of graybody objects.
You only cling to outmoded knowledge because reality challenges some dearly-held ideology which you feel you cannot part with.
Kooks…would you please learn the social skill of replying more kindly and with more understanding. You don’t need to insult people as a matter of course. Nepal and others aren’t like Crothers and Robitaille and climate alarmists who obviously just bs and lie… People who are having real science discussions can just do that without the mocking and hostility. Please, try. I know that after years of debating with climate retards and total degenerate scum of the universe goblin psychopaths who are potential serial rapists and murderers like Crothers and Robitaille and Spencer can have left us scarred and jarred and defensive and disillusioned and ready to attack. But it’s not necessary here. You can work on more positive communication styles. What you have to scientifically say often makes sense, but then Nepal often makes good points too. It’s a fine line we’re at here.
Oh, I do have those social skills, Joe…. for instance, you’ve never seen me dress you down, nor Immortal600, nor CD Marshall, nor Jopo, nor boomie789… but when a person, even in the face of a veritable avalanche of exculpatory evidence, refuses to even consider that they are incorrect and continues {and I’m following your orders here} ahem… “reiterating the same incorrectitudes”… well, I don’t suffer fools lightly.
I do not believe that “Nepal” is who you believe him to be (a 16 year old who can cogently converse on deep topics and apparently holds graduate-level mathematical skills)… his argumentation methodology, his stated beliefs, the topics he focuses upon and his apparent dislike of certain people leads me to believe it is none other than sockmonger ‘evenminded’, forced to tone it down so he doesn’t get booted yet again, but desperately attempting to continue twisting science to further his CAGW ideology.
Your “corrections” are based upon the same incorrectitudes you continue reiterating, while you absolutely refuse to consider any evidence that you might be wrong. For instance, even after being shown a closed cavity which didn’t exhibit a blackbody spectrum, you continue to make the incorrect claim that all closed cavities exhibit a blackbody spectrum regardless of the cavity material. For instance, you’ve contradicted yourself in claiming that cavity material didn’t matter in the production of a blackbody spectrum, while admitting that a perfectly reflecting cavity will not produce a blackbody spectrum… you hand-waved it away by claiming that perfectly reflecting material didn’t exist… only to be shown several examples of same.
Immortal600 has corrected me many times, with evidence and mathematics to back it up. What he didn’t do was make an assertion sans any proof and in direct contradiction to any evidence already presented, then continued to double-down, then run away while claiming that he holds the moral high ground.
Let us do a gedanken experiment…
For this experiment, you need to visualize:
––––––––––––
A nitrogen bath at 77 K.
A room temperature of 295 K.
A small cavity of perfectly reflecting material [α = 0%; ε = 0%; ρ = 100%; τ = 0%]
A large cavity of idealized blackbody material [α = 100%; ε = 100%; ρ = 0%; τ = 0%]
Both cavities have some means of measuring their radiation spectrum.
The small cavity will have a hinge on one wall which can open and close, and some means of remotely closing that wall of the cavity without disturbing the system.
––––––––––––
Now, we place the small cavity within the large cavity, with one wall of the small cavity open.
We place the (sealed) large cavity into the liquid nitrogen bath.
We allow the entire system to equilibrate to 77 K.
We then close the wall of the small cavity, and remove the large cavity from the nitrogen bath.
We then allow the entire system to equilibrate with room temperature (295 K).
We then measure the radiation spectrum in both cavities.
We will see that the large cavity does indeed have a blackbody spectrum corresponding to 295 K.
We will also see that the small cavity has a blackbody spectrum still corresponding to 77 K, even though the walls of the cavity are equilibrated to 295 K. Remember, they are perfectly reflecting and thus have zero emissivity and zero absorptivity (and of course, zero transmissivity). They can do no work upon the radiation field within the cavity, nor can the photons do work upon the walls.
And that is what generates a blackbody spectrum… the ability of the walls of the cavity to do work / have work done upon them to equilibrate the radiation injected into the cavity to a blackbody spectrum.
If we take that large cavity and inject coherent monochromatic photons from a laser, we will still have a blackbody spectrum because the cavity walls are doing work upon the injected radiation to convert that monochromatic radiation to other wavelengths. The walls can do this because the photons can first do work upon the walls.
If we take that small cavity and inject coherent monochromatic photons from a laser, we will have a monochromatic radiation field because the cavity walls can do no work upon the radiation field, nor the radiation field upon the walls.
Now… at thermodynamic equilibrium, when energy density gradient is zero, when photon chemical potential is zero, when photon Helmholtz Free Energy is zero, how much work can the photons do upon the cavity walls (and the cavity walls upon the photons, regardless of cavity wall material)? ZERO.
This is why graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium are considered to be perfectly reflecting.
Do keep in mind that the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium is the minimum of Helmholtz Free Energy… a quiescent state. When Helmholtz Free Energy = 0, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has been attained. You can’t get any more ‘minimum’ than zero.
As ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody total emissive power as compared to idealized blackbody object emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Helmholtz Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Helmholtz Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
And that invalidates Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. The quality of a cavity absolutely depends upon the cavity material, in direct contradiction to Kirchhoff’s claims to the contrary.
Nepal wrote:
“Obviously if you are blasting radio waves into and out of the cavity with an external power source, it is not a closed cavity”
You’re forgetting something…
Kirchhoff specified two conditions by which Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation existed:
1) thermal equilibrium must exist
2) the entire system’s energy must be contained within the radiation field in the cavity space
It is condition number 2 which necessitates a perfect absorber / emitter (an idealized blackbody, which must emit all that it absorbs and which must absorb all that is incident upon it) or a perfect reflector (which has absorptivity and emissivity of 0, so it cannot absorb any of the radiation), as no energy can be in the cavity walls.
But a perfect reflector cannot equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody spectrum. In other words, the photons must be able to do work upon the cavity walls, and the walls must be able to do work upon whatever radiation spectrum we introduce to the cavity (even if that radiation is at a single wavelength) to convert it to a blackbody spectrum.
Thus, in the case of perfectly-reflecting cavity walls, the radiation we inject into the cavity can do no work upon the cavity walls, and no work can be done upon the radiation by the walls, and thus it cannot be converted to a blackbody spectrum. Thus, because Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation is purported to extend to all materials, this alone invalidates it. Kirchhoff’s own conditions invalidate Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation… it requires that the walls have work done upon them by the cavity space radiation and do work upon the cavity space radiation and hold no energy.
Only idealized blackbody walls and perfectly reflecting walls could hold no energy so all energy is in the radiation field in the cavity space. Only idealized blackbody walls can have work done upon them by the radiation field and do work upon the radiation field necessary to equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody spectrum while holding no energy so all the energy is in the radiation in the cavity space.
So Kirchhoff’s Law only holds for idealized blackbody walls, per Kirchhoff’s own conditions… and idealized blackbody objects are idealizations… they don’t actually exist.
Further, because idealized blackbody objects emit at temperature greater than 0 K and must absorb all radiation incident upon them, they can never attain the quiescent state of thermodynamic equilibrium except at 0 K. Absorption and emission aren’t quiescence.
Even further, given that emissivity and absorptivity are always equal to 1 for idealized blackbody objects, Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t describe anything about idealized blackbody objects that that isn’t already in the definition of an idealized blackbody object.
So while you can claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation is ‘a thing’, it’s ‘a thing’ that describes something that does not and cannot exist, and by Kirchhoff’s own conditions, cannot apply to anything else.
Now let’s hear your “Nepal’s Law of Glitter-Farting Unicorns”. LOL
That’s kind of why, after all, Kirchhoff, after working with blackbody cavities, attempted to extend Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all objects by going to the other extreme of a perfectly-reflecting cavity… except he couldn’t get it to work, which is why he had to use that small piece of graphite or carbon to equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody spectrum. I find it hard to believe that someone of such knowledge wouldn’t have realized that he was introducing a thermalizer into the cavity and thus destroying the perfect-reflector case, but it was a long time ago, so perhaps.
And Planck (a student of Kirchhoff in 1877 and his successor at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Berlin in 1889), in order to get his theory to work (which was predicated upon Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation) had to do the same.
Planck erred in failing to properly validate Kirchhoff’s Law (from which he derived his equation)… his attempt at validating Kirchhoff’s Law in The Theory of Heat Radiation is filled with errors… he had to redefine blackbodies, he ignored absorptivity at the interface of the blackbody, he used polarized light (when thermal radiation is never polarized) and thus misused Brewster’s Law, and he, like Kirchhoff, cheated a bit by using a small chunk of graphite or carbon as a thermalizer (what he called a ‘catalyst’) in a perfectly reflecting cavity (which cannot otherwise exhibit a blackbody spectrum).
Nepal wrote:
“But such a thing does not exist. There is no perfectly reflecting material”
Except graybody material at thermodynamic equilibrium, per the definition of emissivity, absorptivity, 2LoT, entropy, etc.,etc., etc. as I show above.
See, you keep repeating these incorrectitudes without once acknowledging that I’ve already provided cases where you’re wrong. That doesn’t bode well for your credibility.
The fact that total internal reflection reflects 100% of radiation is completely apart from the fact that straight-line transit of light through glass experiences absorption… you claimed there was no such thing as ‘perfectly reflecting material’, I showed you several such cases. Now you’re attempting to conflate things by claiming that because glass absorbs radiation, that somehow disproves the case of total internal reflection being perfectly reflecting. Again, that doesn’t bode well for your credibility.
{ Take note, Joe… not once did I call him a ‘disingenuous goal-post-moving doubling-down on stupid clue-repellent half-wit’. I was entirely polite, per your instruction. LOL }
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Plasma, or a close approximation thereof.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Did you forget that below the plasma frequency, radiation incident upon the plasma is totally reflected, which is what causes the phenomenon of ionospheric skip?
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Merely take your usual cavity, apply a high enough positive electric potential to strip valence electrons from it , ensure it remains electrically isolated after removing the electric potential. No valence electrons, no inter-molecular dipole interaction (the dominant source of blackbody radiation is transient oscillating dipoles induced by inter-molecular thermal vibrations within a material), no blackbody radiation production. Perfectly reflecting below the plasma frequency (whatever that would be for the given cavity wall material).
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Electrical negation.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Or use a material such that an oscillating charge in the material, excited by an external oscillator circuit, is essentially π/2 out of phase with the cavity radiation. Thus, any emitted light is completely out of phase with the cavity radiation, and so the cavity radiation’s electric field goes to zero at the surface. Perfectly reflecting.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
LOL
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Total external reflection.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
For soft x-rays and extreme UV rays, at an angle of incidence of 0.5 – 1 degrees, due to the index of refraction being slightly less than 1 (whereas, for example, visible light has a refractive index in the rarer medium that is always greater than 1), the radiation is totally reflected. The angle of refraction can be up to 90 degrees at the critical angle. The purer the material, the higher the reflectance at higher angles of incidence, tending to 100% as the angle of incidence decreases. You’d have to configure your cavity space to ensure the radiation always has that small angle of incidence… so a torus (like a Tokamak) or somesuch.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Piezoelectric photorefractivity.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Drive a piezoelectric wall at a frequency such that it oscillates π/2 out of phase with incident radiation, the interaction of the space charge field and the optical field cancels the electric field of the cavity radiation at the surface of the wall. Total reflection.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
LOL
“Ok, aside from the veritable avalanche of examples you’ve provided, you can’t provide any examples of perfect reflection coupled with no absorptivity in the cavity space. It can’t be done.” – Nepal, probably
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00340-003-1258-8
“An active stabilization of photorefractive two-wave coupling by means of an electronic feedback loop has been used extensively during recent years in transmission geometry. It leads to 100% diffraction efficiency η and also to periodic states instead of familiar steady states.”
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
LOL
I am running out of popcorn.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Dark state coherent superposition population trapping.
Nepal wrote:
“It… it can’t be done?”
A dark state occurs using laser light to induce transitions between energy levels, when atoms can spontaneously decay into a state that is not coupled to any other level by the laser light, preventing the atom from absorbing or emitting light from that state.
And what happens when an atom cannot absorb or emit?
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected.
Nepal wrote:
“It {sniffle} can’t {sob} be done.”
LOL
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41586-019-1196-1
“It has long been recognized that atomic emission of radiation is not an immutable property of an atom, but is instead dependent on the electromagnetic environment and, in the case of ensembles, also on the collective interactions between the atoms. In an open radiative environment, the hallmark of collective interactions is enhanced spontaneous emission—super-radiance—with non-dissipative dynamics largely obscured by rapid atomic decay. Here we observe the dynamical exchange of excitations between a single artificial atom and an entangled collective state of an atomic array through the precise positioning of artificial atoms realized as superconducting qubits along a one-dimensional waveguide. This collective state is dark, trapping radiation and creating a cavity-like system with artificial atoms acting as resonant mirrors in the otherwise open waveguide.”
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Remember back when I told you that it’s all stimulated emission… that what we call spontaneous emission is merely due to the anisotropy of the EM component of the quantum vacuum, whereas what we call stimulated emission is anisotropy introduced from other processes? Yeah.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Remember back when I told you that emission isn’t just a function of a body’s internal state (as Prevost’s Principle and the climate alarmists claim), that the S-B equation clearly shows that it is the energy density gradient which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object, considering its (T_h^4 – T_c^4) term, and that temperature is a measure of energy density (equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant), and thus that term in the S-B equation calculates the energy density gradient? Then I backed it up by doing the calculations using only energy densities, corroborating it with the S-B equation to a precision of 3.84 parts per 100 trillion? Yeah.
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
Remember back when you denied all that? Yeah. Rinse and repeat, eh? LOL
Nepal wrote:
“It can’t be done.”
LOL
Nepal wrote:
” Instead you have just listed a bunch of other ideas for reflectors.”
All of which prove your contention that there is no perfectly-reflecting material wrong.
How about that total exterior reflection? Why, that’d make for a very easy cavity, total reflection back into the cavity space. Forget that one, did ya? LOL
Nepal wrote:
“More importantly, there is zero evidence that any of the mechanisms you have listed are capable of perfect reflection with exactly zero absorption.”
Except that several of them empirically measure total reflection… had you read up on any of them, you’d realize this.
In the case of dark state coherent superposition population trapping and cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors, given that the atoms cannot even absorb the wavelength used, it can do nothing but reflect totally. It’s right there in the equations, which you desperately want to deny but know you cannot:
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected.
Nepal wrote:
“The other is a paper that I can’t access, but it involves active feedback — which means external energy is being used, so it is not closed, not at equilibrium.”
Moving the goal posts again, Nepal? You claimed that (to quote you verbatim) “There is no perfectly reflecting material”.
I showed many, many, many instances of perfectly reflecting material. You made no precondition that it need be at equilibrium, just that it exist.
Nepal wrote:
“Finally, you have slipped back into acting like a rude little child.”
By being right, by proving you wrong or by pointing out that you’ve slipped back into your usual routine of denying scientific reality until you’re drubbed about the head and shoulders to the point of incoherence before you grudgingly accept scientific reality, only to apparently forget at some later date (likely when you believe others have forgotten that you’ve grudgingly accepted reality) and go right back to your original denials? You know, ‘evenminded’ does exactly that. I should know, I drop-kicked that tardling across CFACT every single day for more than 3 years. Drove him to the point that he couldn’t even form complete sentences nor count, had him so stomping mad he swore vengeance, made him cry, made him play the victim… just as you’re attempting to do now… and all because I challenged his dearly-held ideological belief of CAGW. LOL
If you’re looking for a “perfect reflector” at thermodynamic equilibrium, then have I got a deal for you!
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103192
Graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium are by definition perfect reflectors. To claim otherwise violates so many scientific principles and fundamental physical laws that you’d have to be joking to even claim it.
As ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody total emissive power as compared to idealized blackbody object emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Helmholtz Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Helmholtz Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
Did you forget about that one, Nepal? LOL
I especially liked the time when I proved ‘evenminded’ (using a different sock at the time) wrong on a key aspect of his religiously-held belief in CAGW, and he just repeated “DISMISSED!!!! for hours… I kept piling on to the point that he was so shaken that he started misspelling even that word. Then he ran away for a few months. Then he had to ditch that sock because he was too embarrassed to use it anymore, which is why he’s using ‘evenminded’ now. LOL
Ever have anything like that happen to you, ‘Nepal’? LOL
I am out of popcorn.
Give that man a beer.
I miss popcorn.
Try pine nuts, they are a healthy alternative that contain Terpenes.
@Nepal and others.
OK my last shot at this. I go into detail with this little piece. Explaining the difference between the Faraday and the Coulomb.
I also show that the Electron Volt or Joules per charged Electron is unique to Earth only and not a universal number. Hence why when I made allowances for gravity we could transfer it to Venus and calculate the Venusian temp at 1 Bar.
It is a long piece with a few pics. I hope it comes out right. Excuse the manner of the writing. It is literally what I sent to a family member
I can obtain the Earths average surface watts/meter and temperature via Stefan boltzman law by simply counting the amount of electrons in ONE mole of AIR. Multiply that by the Joules required to charge up the electron to one electron volt.
Better still is that I can then calculate the temperature on Venus at the atmospheric pressure of Earth at 1 Bar simply by knowing the amount of electrons in 1 mole of Venusian Air.
So what we need to do is understand that the base unit for a MOLE of Charged up electrons is one Faraday. 1 Faraday of Charge = 1 Mole of Charged up electrons.
However for convenience the Science community use the Coulombs in lieu of the Faraday.
1 FARADAY measured in Ampere Hours = 96485 Coulombs measured in Ampere Seconds
Or
26.8014833 Ampere hours is the same as 96485.3399 Ampere Seconds when it comes to energy delivered to charge up 1 mole of electrons
96485.3399 / 3600 seconds = 26.8014833
A Electron Volt is rated at 1.609 x 10^-19 eV or otherwise known as JOULES. I.E Work done to charge that electron.
96485 Coulombs is the equivalent of 96485 Ampere Seconds, 96485 Watts / Volt, 96485Joules / Coulomb
The Table below shows that we have 8.74348E+24 Electrons in one MOLE of AIR. Or 14.5189 Moles of Electrons to 1 Mole of Air.
Multiply that 8.74348E+24 Electrons by the Joules required to charge up each electron 1.609 x 10^-19 Joules and divide by 3600 to get the Base unit joules in Hours.
Remember. The Faraday is measured in Ampere Hours. Not Seconds.
Answer is 389.12 Watts per Meter. This from the IPCC previously.
Apply the Stefan Boltzmann Law and 389.12 Wm-2 is 287.82 Kelvin.
Earths Average temperature is 288 Kelvin.
With this we can extrapolate and obtain the temperature on Venus at 1 Bar using the same as done for Earth
Before we start the math on this we need to be able to compare apples with apples here.
Venus receives 1.91 times the solar energy that Earth does. Using the Inverse square Law we determine that the rating factor is 1.91^.25 = 1.175
We now have to take into account gravity. When Millikan and Fletcher calculated the charge required for the Electron their work was based upon an OIL DROPLET Experiment where electric charge was introduced to NEGATE gravity on Earth. So the 1.609 x 10^-19 Joules and all subsequent math is based on a system RELEVANT to EARTH. Just like when we measure temperatures on other planets it is relevant to our science and our numbers.
1.314000 x 10^25 Electrons per mole of Venusian Air X by 1.609 x 10^-19 Joules
Divided by Venus Gravity of 8.87 ms-2 and multiplied by Earths Gravity of 9.80665 ms-2. Then we need to factor in the inverse square law. Multiply by 1.175
1.314000 x 10^25 / 8.87 * 9.80665 * 1.175 * 1.602 x10^-19 /3600 = 759.69 Watts per meter.
Using the Stefan Boltzman Law this equates to 340 Kelvin.
This paper by Robinson and Caitling shows the temperature on Venus at 1 BAR
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259445396_Common_01_bar_Tropopause_in_Thick_Atmospheres_Set_by_Pressure-Dependent_Infrared_Transparency
The extract below comes from the Robert Holmes Paper
“On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance and the Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies”
The measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere cited here comes from Venera’s 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and from the Pioneer Sounder at 1atm, averages 340K [12, 13, 20].
[12] Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J. Tomasko, M. G. (1985). Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 5 (11), 197-232.
[13] Zasova, L., Ignatiev, N., Khatuntsev, I., & Linkin, V. (2007). Structure of the Venus atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science, 55 (12), 1712-1728.
Also referenced in the Holmes Paper is the source of the pic below.
[1] Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 [thinsp] bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7 (1), 12-15.
I added in the Dashed box and comments.
Regards Jopo
Arrrgh. 3rd pic should be directly under the second pic
“α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.”
That’s pretty good. I think I’ve used the term “resonance” before, when asked “muh what happens to the photons derp”. They just resonate with the identical frequencies which already exist on the surface…and so yes, that means reflection.
Jopo,
Thanks for posting your working.
When you first posted I was like Eh?
Then you identified that 3600 Coulomb (per second) equals 1 Faraday (per hour) and next you introduced Millikan’s droplet experiment were electrical charge is balanced against Earth’s gravity and you had my attention. Moving to Venus clearly requires a scalar to take account of the different gravity on Venus, however I am still puzzling about the inverse distance effect in your analysis because this relates to solar radiation intensity, but you have got me this far so maybe the application of Holmes’ scalar is valid.
The issue of molar mass speaks to the idea I have that escape velocity has relevance to atmospheric composition at different planetary gravity values and solar power intensity. (The boiling pot evaporation analogy).
You may want to adjust for the lower value of Venus gravity of 8.733077172 m/s^2 for an atmospheric pressure of 101,300 Pascals at an elevation of 47,692 metres above the surface. See my spreadsheet Venus Gravity Profile 01Mar21.xlsx on Research Gate.
An application of your equation to Mars and Titan is the next step.
You got it, Jopo. Good job.
Now perfect it into a formal paper, find applications for which it outperforms the current solutions, and you’ve made your mark on history.
You can, for instance, get a better estimate of atmospheric composition of planets if the other variables are known. You can get a better estimate of planetary mass (the gravity of that planet) if the atmospheric composition and temperature is known.
In fact, that’s the exact proof I would use to check the math… use the known atmospheric composition, solar insolation and atmospheric temperature of the planets to arrive at the planetary mass (and hence gravitational pull of those planets).
You’ve drawn a line, established a connection between the gravity of a planet, the insolation of that planet, the atmospheric composition of that planet, and the atmospheric temperature of that planet. That’s huge even in the small case that it invalidates CAGW right here on Earth.
Small correction, since I’m presuming you’ll be writing a formal paper and you want all your i’s dotted and t’s crossed:
Jopo wrote:
“This from the IPCC previously.”
That’s from Kiehl and Trenberth. I can’t remember if the IPCC used it or not, but it originated with K & T.
That’s Nobel-level material right there. Paradigm-changing, is what that is.
Think of the implications of what Jopo’s developed… say astronomers know the orbital radius, atmospheric composition and temperature of a planet, but the planetary solar insolation doesn’t match what the star is putting out, so the planetary temperature is lower than what they’d estimate for that amount of solar insolation… they can then estimate how much dust is intercepting radiation between star and planet. And from that they can determine what that dust consists of based upon the density of that dust in space and how much that dust is absorbing / scattering radiation.
If they can find no signature of dust / rings / debris field in the intervening space between star and planet, it might signal the presence of a moon or multiple moons which are blocking solar insolation during their transit.
If they can find no evidence of a moon or moons, they may have incorrectly estimated planetary orbital radius or the eccentricity of that orbit.
In any case, now things have to better align, scientifically-speaking.
If the planet is warmer than the orbital radius, solar insolation, atmospheric composition, etc. warrant, they may have incorrectly measured solar output due to dust between star and sensor.
Sure, they can do the same now, but not at the mathematical precision Jopo’s solution provides. It tightens up the relation between star output, planetary solar insolation, planetary atmospheric composition and planetary atmospheric temperature… the applications of this will be far-ranging.
This may be what is needed to find planets with Earth-like atmospheres. There may be some unique signature in the mathematics which always points to a nitrogen-dominant, oxygen-rich, argon-sparse, carbon dioxide-depleted atmosphere such that it makes finding such planets (regardless of solar insolation, planetary size and hence gravitational pull, orbital radius, etc). easier.
In fact, one could, if one were so disposed, create a program which takes as inputs whatever information you’ve got (the solar insolation of a planet, the atmospheric composition of a planet, the orbital radius of the planet, the planet’s atmospheric temperature, etc.), and outputs whatever unknowns there are.
Sort of like the Hyperphysics Stefan-Boltzmann calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
Where you input everything except what you’re solving for, click on the red symbol of what you’re solving for, and it’ll do the calculation… except in this case if there is more than one thing which is unknown, it’d provide a graphical output which delineates a ‘surface’ of solutions of the given unknowns for the given knowns
So the output would look something like this:
Not that exactly, of course, but you get the point… it’d allow you to solve for any unknowns by providing the range of unknowns within the bounds of the knowns.
That’d make it dead-simple to eliminate any conditions which we know cannot exist, to arrive at a closer approximation of what the conditions on that planet actually are.
These fn retards:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/alibaba-exec-pitches-individual-carbon-footprint-tracker-world-economic-forum
Nepal wrote:
“There is no perfect reflector. Which idea should I debunk next?”
Now do graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, by definition perfect reflectors… to do so you’ll have to deny so many scientific principles and fundamental physical laws that you’ll be laughed off the internet. LOL
In fact, any energy flow must generate entropy (because radiative energy flow is an entropic, temporal process), so any system outside of thermodynamic equilibrium must eventually dissipate. That doesn’t imply that the resonant mirrors they used aren’t perfect reflectors (which is the disproof of your claim that no perfect reflectors exist), just that other parts of the system cause an entropy increase and hence dissipation.
So you’re attempting to conflate ‘the reflectors’ with ‘the entire system’… and now you’re attempting to extend the meaning of your “perfect” to include all wavelengths being reflected. Pretty disingenuous of you, Nepal.
And it would have to be disingenuous rather than a simple error, correct? You did, after all, by your own admission, “read the paper carefully” (your words), so you would have seen the very text you quoted, to wit: “The collective dark state has no coupling to the waveguide”… no coupling, no dissipation from the dark state mirrors. It’s the other parts of the system doing the dissipation.
So your choices are now:
1) admit that you’re being disingenuous, or…
2) admit that you’re incapable of “reading carefully”, or…
3) admit that you’re incapable of grokking reality.
Your choice. LOL
If we extend Nepal’s “all wavelengths” case to just “mirrors”, Nepal can rightly claim that there are no mirrors. At all. Even metal becomes transparent at high enough frequency.
Is that the point that you’re trying to make, Nepal? LOL
Because the point you actually made is that in desperation, you’re flailing about, attempting to redefine “total reflection” and indeed just plain old “reflection” to include all wavelengths… but then redefining commonly-held and long-known definitions to fit one’s crackpottery is what ‘evenminded’ did, too. LOL
Further:
” Using waveguide transmission and individual addressing of the probe qubit, we observe spectroscopic and time-domain signatures of the collective dynamics of the qubit array, including vacuum Rabi oscillations between the probe qubit and the cavity-like mode. These oscillations provide direct evidence of strong coupling between these modes as well as a natural method of efficiently creating and measuring dark states that are inaccessible through the waveguide”
So it was the probe qubit which was “strongly coupling” to the cavity wavemodes, not the dark state qubits being used as perfect reflectors. And the probe qubit, coupling strongly with the cavity modes, dissipated them… in other words, to measure the system, we must interact with and thus perturb the system, which introduces uncertainties we describe via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Aldous Huxley stated 24 years after he’d written it that while he set “Brave New World” 600 years in the future, given the rate at which humanity was diving headlong toward tyrannical overrun of the systems meant to serve mankind to actually enslaving mankind, he would set his story at the most 200 years in the future.
And even that was too far out into the future… if the communists styling themselves as mere liberals had their way, the word “mother” would be an obscenity and normal monogamous relationships would be outlawed just as it is in “Brave New World”. But they want to outdo even the grossness of Huxley’s text… they’d outlaw heterosexuality. They’re literally insane… liberalism isn’t a mental disease, it’s a marker of and a causative agent of mental disease.
We’re only 66 years on from him making that statement, and we’re so close the libtards can smell it… that’s why they’ve become so bold of late that they’re teaching smut and grooming and indoctrinating children in schools. For the record, that’s an average of 1 teacher per day arrested for child sex crimes in 2022.
Nepal wrote:
“The issue has been, from the very start, your claim that one could build a cavity where light lives forever, never thermalizing, just reflecting.”
You’ll be getting right on pointing out where I’ve ever stated anything of the sort, or you’ll admit you’ve been caught lying yet again, Nepal.
I addressed perfect reflection via several methods and showed several examples, you moved the goalposts to “all wavelengths” and now to “light lives forever”, you conflated “the system” to “the mirrors” in an attempt at showing dissipation by the mirrors, you’ve redefined commonly-held and long-known definitions, which you do every single time you get a hair up your butt and start attacking me… everything that the uberkook ‘evenminded’ does.
Now start ranting about physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD again. You know you want to. LOL
It’s because we’re invaded by a parasitical alien species that seeks to destroy us while laughing at us about it. They’ve done it to many planets before ours.
Nepal wrote:
“Not in Figure 3b. Here the light is transferred out of probe qubit, purely into dark state of mirrors.
And yet in Figure 3b, where only the mirrors are involved, the light still dissipates. Of course there are many ways for energy to dissipate besides waveguide coupling. Probably absorption here.”
It is transferred back to the probe qubit, you disingenuous turd. How else do you think they measure the system over time? Magic?
Good gawd, you’re either too dense to figure these things out, or you’re intentionally pulling ‘facts’ out of your nether regions to advance whatever agenda you’ve got.
Now, what agenda could a person have which would require denying scientific reality, making things up, conflating things to twist science, redefining commonly-held and long-known definitions, and attacking people who’ve been able to see through the climastrologist BS… all things ‘evenminded’ is known to do, as well as using socks, sneaking into comments sections, acting like he’s on the side of the skeptics, only to twist science to fit his uber-kooky belief that it is continual 2LoT violations which cause CAGW?
Aren’t you the kook who not too long ago was denying that thermodynamic equilibrium was a quiescent state, the kook who was denying that no energy could flow at thermodynamic equilibrium, the kook who was denying that energy density gradient is what determines radiant exitance of the warmer object? Yeah, yeah it was, along with a whole host of other stuff.
In fact, you’ll get right on describing how the radiation could not be transferred back to the probe qubit, considering that it’s sitting right smack dab in the middle of the two dark-state qubits.
Did you miss that, or did you conveniently omit that to prove whatever kooky point you’re attempting to prove, ‘Nepal’? LOL
Jopo, I did a bit of research that’ll help your case. I included every chemical symbol you’ve got in your spreadsheet, plus a few more, using online searches and the book below.
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 97th Edition (2016-2017)
Click to access CRC%20Handbook%20of%20Chemistry%20and%20Physics%20-%2097th%20Edition%20(2016).pdf
That book still lists the old value of Avogadro’s Constant, rather than the new SI unit exact value. Apparently the new value didn’t come in until 2019 under NIST Special Publication 330, redefined 20 May 2019 by International Bureau of Weights & Measures. Now exactly 6.02214076e23 mol-1.
Nitrogen — N2 — 78.084%
Nitrogen N 7 [14.00643, 14.00728]
Oxygen — O2 — 20.9476%
Oxygen O 8 [15.99903, 15.99977]
Argon — Ar — 0.934%
Argon Ar 18 39.9481
Carbon Dioxide — CO2 — 0.042%
Carbon C 6 [12.0096, 12.0106]
Oxygen O 8 [15.99903, 15.99977]
Neon — Ne — 0.001818%
Neon Ne 10 20.17976
Helium — He — 0.000524%
Helium He 2 4.0026022
Methane — CH4 — 0.000179%
Carbon C 6 [12.0096, 12.0106]
Hydrogen H 1 [1.00784, 1.00811]
Krypton — Kr — 0.000114%
Krypton Kr 36 83.7982
Hydrogen — H2 — 0.00005%
Hydrogen H 1 [1.00784, 1.00811]
Carbon Monoxide — CO — 0.00001%
Carbon C 6 [12.0096, 12.0106]
Oxygen O 8 [15.99903, 15.99977]
Xenon — Xe — 0.0000087%
Xenon Xe 54 131.2936
Ozone — O3 — 0.000007%
Oxygen O 8 [15.99903, 15.99977]
Nitrogen Dioxide — NO2 — 0.000002%
Nitrogen N 7 [14.00643, 14.00728]
Oxygen O 8 [15.99903, 15.99977]
Iodine — I2 — 0.000001%
Iodine I 53 126.904473
Ammonia — NH3 — 0.00000034%
Nitrogen N 7 [14.00643, 14.00728]
Hydrogen H 1 [1.00784, 1.00811]
Yeah, that adds up to greater than 100%. Nitrogen being the largest constituent of our atmosphere, needs to be adjusted downward a bit to reach exactly 100%. The variations in the other percentages due to increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration (and water vapor concentration if you’re not using dry air) are so small that they can be neglected except perhaps for oxygen.
“Following excitation of the probe qubit we use a fast (5 ns) flux bias pulse to tune the probe qubit into resonance with the collective dark state of the mirror qubits (the atomic cavity) for a desired interaction time τ.
Upon returning to its initial frequency after the flux bias pulse, the excited-state population of the probe qubit is measured via the dispersively coupled readout resonator.”
Again, in order to measure a system, we must interact with the system, which introduces uncertainties we describe via Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The universe isn’t inherently indeterminate, we introduce uncertainty when we interact with and thus perturb the system.
The reason the excited-state population drops over time is because they are measuring it over time.
“In the middle green and bottom blue curves we plot the measured probe qubit’s population dynamics while interacting with an atomic cavity formed from type I and type II mirror qubit pairs, respectively.”
“Dark state characterization. We characterized the collective dark state of mirror qubits with population decay time T_1,D and Ramsey coherence time T_2,D using the cooperative interaction with the probe qubit.”
It is the “dispersively coupled readout resonator” and the fact that they had to keep tuning the probe qubit to be resonant with the dark state in order to measure the system that the population decay took place.
Thermal and flux noise also had a hand in population decay, despite them using a cryogenic attenuator on the input waveguide line, and them using asymmetric Josephson junctions in the SQUID loops of all the qubits, and them attenuating the fast flux tuning lines by 20 dB, and them using low-pass filtering on the fast-flux tuning lines, and them using low-pass filtering on the slow-flux tuning lines, and them using three circulators between the output transistor and the sample to isolate amplifier noise, and them using low-pass and band-pass filters on the output line, and them adding another circulator to the measurement chain in later setups, and them using a ‘cold attenuator’ in the measurement chain to achieve better thermalization between the coaxial line and its environment.
As you can see, they had problems with: the input waveguide line, the SQUID loops, the fast and slow flux tuning lines, the amplifier output line, the measurement chain… but you’ll note they had no trouble getting those dark-state qubits to achieve perfect reflection.
As much as you’d like to deny it, Nepal, the fact is that dark states do not and cannot absorb off-resonance radiation.
@ Jopo
Huffmann’s Venus-Earth temperature comparison. First row at 1 bar gives 338.6 K at Venus.
Cheers Oldbrew. Yeah I have seen the various mentions on Temp at 1 Bar. Personally I think the WEB is just one big propaganda machine now. We see what they want us to see. The blatant lies I now find on rather official looking websites about certain science is just mind blowing. And in a manner of not acknowledging science but leading us in a direction of rubbish I find wikipedia to be up there with BS.
Here is the Soviet data I use:
Zasova, L.V., Moroz, V.I., Linkin, V.M., Khatuntsev, I.V. and Maiorov, B.S., 2006. Structure of the Venusian atmosphere from surface up to 100 km. Cosmic Research, 44(4), pp.364-383.
Hello Joseph. Its been a while. How are you doing? grrrthinx Adam W. Eishaupt (A.W.E.)
Hey, yes I think I remember you.
oldbrew – the Venusian data was what proved AGW false for me. It’s strange that the WUWT leadership/readership somehow reject it and remain, to use one of their own terms, lukewarmists.
Lol – here doesn’t seem to be a compelling case for the idea of CO2 having a big radiating effect on Venus’s upper reaches, despite it having 2000x Earth’s concentration of it. I do understand the top-down ozone heating puts a spanner in the comparison works, and I am prepared to be shown to be wrong here.
Nepal wrote:
“It’s far beyond reasonable for you to claim that this paper contains a perfect reflector with zero absorption”
As I said, you desperately want to deny the fact that dark quantum states do not and cannot absorb off-resonance radiation. Because you desperately want to deny scientific reality, to bolster whatever crockpottery you’re attempting to foist upon the unsuspecting and gullible. No one here is buying it, Nepal.
You literally just searched for a blackbody curve image, found one here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339664052_In_Europe
… grabbed the URL of the image, and posted it as if it were “proof” of something… no context whatsoever. How desperate are you to deny scientific reality? LOL
That graphic is from a 1978 book by Kuhn, about Planck from 1900 to 1911, referenced in a paper by Dongen… in which Kuhn argued that Planck didn’t accept quantization until 1910. Planck wrote of Otto Lummer and Ernst Pringsheim (who made that graphic) in 1901 and based his assumptions in that writing off what they’d measured previously for an idealized blackbody cavity.
So a paper by Dongen about a book by Kuhn about a report by Planck about a graphic by Lummer and Pringsheim, to defend your incorrect take on a paper by Mirhosseini et. al., to defend your crackpottery… that is how derivative you’ve become in defending your “energy can flow without regard to energy density gradient” and therefore “dark quantum states can absorb off-resonance radiation” and therefore “dark quantum state mirrors are not perfectly reflecting” crackpottery, Nepal. LOL
Say, isn’t that the same crackpottery promulgated by ‘evenminded’, so he can make his “CAGW is caused by continual 2LoT violations” crackpottery seem to make even a semblance of sense? Sure it is. LOL
So to prove whatever point you’re attempting to prove, you go to a time before even Planck himself accepted quantization, you use a graphic from two researchers using an idealized blackbody cavity and you deny the scientific reality that dark quantum states do not and cannot absorb off-resonance radiation, and all while you completely sidestep even attempting to refute verbatim quotes from that paper by Mirhosseini et. al. proving you wrong:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103397
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103398
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103408
Which must mean you continue to subscribe to the now-invalidated continuum theory (as exemplified in the long-debunked Prevost Principle and Prevost Theory of Exchanges which was predicated upon the long-debunked Caloric Theory) which was prevalent before Planck acknowledge quantization. LOL
Is that what you’re attempting to tell everyone, Nepal? Because that’s what you told everyone, Nepal. LOL
That resonators exist disproves your contention of all closed cavities being idealized blackbodies, Nepal. Even if they are driven and thus out of equilibrium, if all closed cavities were idealized blackbodies, they would thermalize the radiation and thus have a blackbody spectrum… but they don’t, which is why they’re used as resonators. I showed you two examples of closed cavities used as resonators, and yet you continue to deny scientific reality… that can only mean that you have some agenda in continuing to deny scientific reality.
You’re failing, Nepal, and in so doing, you’re exposing yourself as a science-denying, reality-denying ideologically-driven nutter. LOL
Nepal wrote:
“It’s far beyond reasonable for you to claim that this paper contains a perfect reflector with zero absorption”
See? You desperately want to deny the fact that dark quantum states do not and cannot absorb non-resonant radiation.
You did a search for a blackbody curve, grabbed the URL of the image and posted it without context, as if that proves anything. LOL
So a paper written by Dongen in 2020 about a paper written by Planck in 1901 about a paper written by Lummer & Pringsheim in 1900 about idealized blackbody objects, all to defend your incorrect take on a paper written by Mirhosseini et. al. in 2019.
Do you see how derivative you’ve become in attempting to defend your claim that dark quantum states absorb non-resonant radiation, and by extension that there are no perfect reflectors, and by extension that energy can flow without regard to energy density gradient… say, isn’t that the same as is promulgated by ‘evenminded’ so he can make his “continual 2LoT violations cause CAGW” claim seem to make sense? Sure it is. LOL
So you must be subscribing to the continuum theory (as exemplified by the long-debunked Prevost Principle and Prevost Theory of Exchanges, which was predicated upon the long-debunked Caloric Theory), rather than quantum theory, right? Is that what you wanted to convey to people, Nepal? Because that’s what you conveyed to people, Nepal. LOL
And you do all that while completely sidestepping verbatim quotes from the Mirhosseini et. al. paper proving you wrong.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103398
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/05/07/ontological-mathematics-the-theory-of-everything-5-the-mind-and-the-brain-consciousness-and-god/#comment-103408
And you do all that while attempting to redefine “perfect reflection” from “reflects all radiation incident upon it” to “must reflect all wavelengths“; you attempt to move the case of perfect reflection from any conditions to “at thermodynamic equilibrium only” (while completely ignoring the case of graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium being perfect reflectors by definition); you attempt to claim that your claim of closed cavities being perfect blackbodies only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium (which I proved wrong with the cavity-within-a-cavity gedanken experiment above). If a closed cavity was an idealized blackbody regardless of cavity material as you claim, even if it were driven and thus out of equilibrium, it would thermalize the radiation and would thus have a blackbody spectrum… except resonators don’t have a blackbody spectrum (which is why they’re used as resonators), yet again proving you wrong.
I’ve shown you several examples of why you’re wrong, yet you continue squirming, redefining, backpedaling, goal-post-moving and denying reality in a desperate attempt at proving yourself “not wrong”. LOL
Oh look… a perfect reflector under the long-held definition of same… the photonic crystal (which you’ve already denied is a perfect reflector):https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/nature12289https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12289https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/perfect-reflections
“Light waves trying to enter the holes collided with each other. During this collision of light, they essentially erased each other. This meant they couldn’t be absorbed by the slab. But they could be — and were — fully reflected.”
Oh look… a perfect reflector under the long-held definition of same… metamaterials… three types:https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2020.111216https://i.imgur.com/bIGn628.png
Joseph,
Have you read this?
https://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
Yes, just now. Kinda neat.
CD Marshall wrote:
“Have you read this?
https://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html”
I think the amount of effort a society expends toward colonization should be an aggregate function of how centered in the light-cone of each person that colonization event is. So for instance, say we don’t even have the technology to travel to other stars, find an Earth-approximate planet, let alone terraform that planet to make it Earth-like enough for us to live on, let alone colonize that planet…
In that case, the total expenditure of resources toward colonization for the current ‘crop’ of humans should be very low. We perfect our technology and we search for Earth-approximate planets, sure, but we don’t go over the edge into the madness of the paper-clip-making self-replicating AI turning everything on Earth into paperclips (ie: steering all resources toward a colonization which we can’t even do… and thus we chuck people out to space to their doom).
We don’t run before we walk, we don’t walk before we crawl. And we’re not even crawling right now. Remember Biosphere 2? Yeah… abandoned.
Now say that we’ve developed and perfected all the technology we need for colonization and terraforming, we’ve found an Earth-approximate planet which is near enough that we can get there in a couple generations while keeping the travelers safe from radiation causing genetic abnormalities… the colonization event is now much nearer the center of the current generation’s light-cone and thus more resources are steered toward that colonization event, with the younger more dedicated to same than the older because their light-cone center and the colonization event are in closer proximity.
In that way, we ensure the infrastructure needed here is maintained, while slowly ramping up toward the eventual colonization event.
https://odysee.com/@Boomie:a/VID_20220526_072514_109:e?r=AUHBg8UpFrFRjosg7dZhKdpHwQ2D37MM
“COVID has been one of the most profitable products ever… every 30 hours a new billionaire was minted during the pandemic”
Scamdemic…parasitical profit making through destruction and retardation.
Colonizing the Moon and Mars are good test runs to perfect what we should expect in space while keeping a measure of safety. Moon first and then we can work from there. Another Earth like planet holds more of a biological threat than say turning something that is dust into something livable like bases on the Moon or Mars.
It would be neat if we could create human like drones (drone droids?) to do the groundwork for us through a sophisticated AI human neural network. Something we are not even close to perfecting.
Gross!
https://news.ucalgary.ca/news/unique-collaboration-leads-evidence-based-planning-gender-affirming-facial-surgery
They’re working on ways to trick you even better into disgusting sex acts. No tranny will ever make a baby: FACT. So gross.
Hello Joseph. When is the next Ont Math TOE? And did you ever have a meeting with the Hyperian crew that invited you to a zoom meeting on Youtube Comments? If so how did it go, knowing your critical viewpoint of the whole Morgue (Illuminati) viewpoint? As an original AC reader well before the whole Morgue show took over I agree with your position entirely. So was your discussion meaningful, if it ever took place? I see they refused to put questions to you on Youtube.
Hi Z. Timing: not sure. Could do it anytime but need the right mood…lol. Soon I hope.
Interview: They were, literally, a bunch of faggots, and were apparently Hyperian rejects. Well, they werent all faggots, many were good…but the one guy I talked with at length (different from YT comment guy) was a disgusting faggot who literally equated feces from a man’s anus to lubrication from a woman’s vagina – yes, yes, this literally came up – and he literally argued that these are the exact same thing and so it is therefore irrational to be disgusted by pooh. Literally…yes…that happened.
That’s why faggots ruin every single fn movement they come into contact with. Because you can be talking about really important things – should we code in C# or Python; should we observe this star’s spectrum or this different one at higher temperature; what is the fundamental nature of reality and why do we exist; – and the FAGGOT always reduces all questions to: does this approve of my fucking other men in the ass?
You can literally be solving the problem of fusion power in a briefcase, and the homosexual will interject at some point with: but does this mean that I can fuck other men?
They’re so fn disgusting.
Anyway…it (the homo) had some RETARD-tier argument that the PSR wasn’t true. So, a complete waste of my time.
I might cover what happened with them on my next YouTube just to make fun of them and tell them that they’re disgusting retards…at least the homo I was talking with…a few others there were actually quite good…but of course the homo had to make it all about himself and his retarded views as the center of attention. So…I’ll make them the center of attention and eviscerate their retarded argument that the PSR is not true.
OMG thats fucking gross. Didn’t think you would get on with them tards lol.
It’s just another facet of the NWO Homo Brigade trying to destroy our young people with
their filth and corrupt minds. Diversity – Fuck Off. Its fucking disgusting.
What is the acronym PSR? I’m Looking forward to your next lesson. I do learn from them. We all have ways of communicating, and Hockney was sometimes too analytical and not down to earth in his writing.
Btw that geezer AWE. Adam W.Eishaupt I remember him he was a German Rocker who had an Illuminati site called Illuminatum org or something like that. He knew Pho. Was a bit weird, but then all illuminati fan sites were weird lol.
PSR – oh yes of Course.I Like your criteria: that should exclude the majority of non thinkers and sheep out there and the brainwashed woke tribe of anti-thinkers. All types of perverts excluded. All EIC, and its agents, rounded up. Traitors, degenerates, sickos, globalists, paedophiles, removed. That is a good start lol.
Right?!
EIC is the East India Company. The Fabian Roundtable Trilateral Commision, Bildeburg, CFR that with its agents Guiseppi Conti, Mazzini and Hempher ( The Khazarian mafia) that with its CIA and blackmailed Presidents like Eisenhower etc counterparts have spread World terrorism and Psycholical manipulation, feminism, Transexualsism Transhumanism etc to destroy the world in order for it to control every aspect of the world we live in . Its called red Masonry. Armageddon masonry. The sick shits have twisted the book of Revelation in the Bible from a Spiritual Battle to a physical one. They created a twisted Bible called the Scofield bible. They got the Israelis and arab muslims to believe it as a physical battle end time battle that had to happen to bring in the Messiah. The sick shits that included albert PIKE AND BLAVATSkY planned seven wars to follow the seven seals of revelation. Hence the Armageddon Conspiracy. The final battle wast o be a war between the jews and the arabs. The opening of the 7th seal. THey planeed 120 years ahead so that the planners would be long dead in case of come back .911 was planned in 1831 by Conti and Pike knew it and wrote poetical y about it in his book Morals and Dogmas. 911 was to be the beginning of Armageddon.
These are the shits we need to remove,
1881 not 1831 my maths is not the best lol writing from memory.
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/finance/in-profile-trilateral-commission-replacing-capitalism-with-technocracy/
The degenerates Joe are just a symptom of the above. Its a system producing these freaks. We need to get to the root.
Kooks
https://gab.com/BeachMilk/posts/107670588406718831
Yeah. I actually contacted the company about this, long ago. They’re very careful to never claim that their water hammer pumps are ‘over-unity’, just that they’re used to heat water quickly and in large quantity, but there’s no way that small a motor can heat that amount of water without it being ‘over-unity’. Their pumps were used to heat water for a college, a fire engine station and a few other installations. I presented the concept to my employer as a method of heating water without requiring a boiler, so on warm days, we could shut the boiler down and maintain the hot loop temperature solely with that pump, saving tons of money.
That’s understandable… if you’ve ever run a dead-head fire pump for weekly testing, it heats up pretty quickly (so quickly that in 5 minutes, you’ll start steaming your packing, and shortly thereafter you’ll start smoking your packing if you’re not draining some of that water off), necessitating that there be a solenoid valve which opens to drain some of the water to a floor drain, or a pressure-reducing valve which opens when the pump is running to do the same. And that’s for an impeller which is designed to produce pressure, not heat the water. Of course, fire pump motors are anywhere from 50 to 250 HP, so the energy input to the water is going to be high at dead-head.
I suspect the ‘over-unity’ comes about because the pressure changes inside the holes of the impeller drops temperature below ambient, allowing it to absorb ambient energy to get the water closer to its boiling point, before exiting the holes and using the energy input from the motor for the final conversion to steam.
“The first signs of such a new plan to cause 7 wars was in roughly 1710 in Saudi Arabia,
and in about 1711 in America. And as it is already suggested that the bankers play with
time as others play with marbles, we must pursue this idea a little here and in more
detail later. Lombard agent Antonio Conti was in power at this time, working in France,
Germany and Britain and influencing areas as far apart as the USA and Saudi Arabia.
In 1710 an agent of the East India, Mr Hempher, created Hempherism in Saudi Arabia, a
radicalised form of Islam. Others refer to this political system as Wahhabism.
It became the Young Turks-Muslim Brotherhood. This was the real foundation of WW1 and
remains the threat that is designed to become WW3. Such lodges of Hempherism also helped
provide the 1916 Thule Society that recruited Hitler for WW2 and, such devotees of war,
also took Lenin to Russia for the Russian Revolution in harmony with the war making Mega
(L) bankers of the USA”. (Excerpt from the following book):
See the book The Invisible College: 9.11 to Armageddon. by William Stuart
Oh btw they were also responsible for the Protocols of Sion by Joly and Cremiex agents of EIC.
The protocols were a forgery by the Illuminati EIC.( Rothschilds= Khazars) to blame in on the “real” Jews.
The EIC are still around just morphed into the CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bilderburg in the USA and the Round Table, RIIA, Chatham House and Fabian Society in the UK, along with the European Union.
7 wars as planned by Conti in 1710:
Red Masonry symbols refer to the 7 wars:
1 Boston Tea Party;
2 Madame Guillotine and the French Revolution;
3 Dividing America in Civil War into two halves;
4 Russian Revolution, where the bones of priests were deliberately scattered across the plains;
5 WW1 (those in white robes stained with blood);
6 WW2 and
7 Armageddon or WW3.
Stuart, William. The Invisible College: 9.11 to Armageddon .
As mentioned the Protocols of Sion were written by Joly on the behest of EIC Agent Cremieux. Its goal was to foment blame against the Jews, leading to the Holocaust and War. The EIC agents ( insidiously, the Khazar fake jews – name stealers were the real culprits).
It all started with the Protocols produced by the Khazar false Jews i.e Joly and Cremieux.
This was to get the world population to blame the Jews for writing it and behind implementing it.
Then they, the Khazars produced the Scofield bible, which changed John of Patmos’ vision ( the writer of the Book of Revelation) from a spiritual battle to a physical battle at the end of times. (The Armageddon Conspiracy).
By creating Zion and using this Bible and by also creating the Young Turks movement ( Muslim Brotherhood) , they introduced this false bible into the Middle East in Arab, and Jew hands. Also into the conservative christian USA.
Next they needed to get a home for the Jews ( by taking land that didn’t belong to them , but belonged to the real Semites the Arabs. i.e the Balfour Declaration* (which really was written by Milner of the anarchic Roundtable, war making society).
Next they needed to create a radical Young Israel and a Young Turks ( later to become the Muslim Brotherhood) to compete and fight each other.
Then they needed to create conflict via the Scofield bible that both the Jews and the Arabs had to create an Armageddon, as it was written in their religion ( wrongly – deceivingly put via the Scofield bible, as in the original KJ version it was a spiritual battle of good versus evil, ignorance versus gnosis, an opening of the chakras ( the 7 seals = the 7 chakras), ascension to Christhood.
(see the book The Alchemy of Christ by LaRoya).
According to the plan, The Seven seals were the 7 world conflicts, culminating in a Gog and Magog war of Christianity versus Islam = the opening of the 7th seal, the final conflict.
in 1881 the re-imagined EIC ( who plan 120 year blocks so that the planners are long dead by the time the conflict takes place) got to work.
Amazingly they planned what was ultimately be the the 911 attacks back in 1881 to create the war against terrorism and create a conflict between the Middle east and the west. They succeeded on September 11th 2001.
“The final battle was set up and initiated Armageddon Zionism. One hundred and twenty years on from these crucial and bizarre developments came the 9.11 event, which neatly provided the excuse to start a series of revolutions in the region.
The bankers had already taken Suez from Britain, Trilateral Commission later removing the Shah of Iran. But now a focused plan would create world terrorism, an east-west divide, a “Clash of Civilisations”, an “Axis of Evil” and in potential a religious war”…
…and the prelude to the opening of the 7th Seal …..World War 3, which is where we are now.
The EIC were effectively a bunch of pirates. Hence the Skull and Bones Society 322.
322 incidentally is in reference to Phanes the Luminous God. The breaking open of the Orphic egg.
The universe in their Eleusian Mystery Religion is shaped and its nature is like an egg and when the occultists break it, it releases 322 and brings him his desires through warfare.
If you watch the BBC Series Taboo it goes into detail about the British East India Company.
I had it by reliable information that the illuminati gave the series a thumbs up.
It is definitely worth a watch. Oh also, Jack Sparrow of Pirates of the Caribbean had several run ins
with the EIC lol. Ironically though the EIC fought against piracy as they were stealing their ill gotten gains; they themselves were far from innocent traders – from opium to slaves.
They were and still believe themselves to be the Gods of War.
Armageddon it
We’ve all seen the atomizers on perfume bottles and such, utilizing a venturi and Bernoulli’s Law to reduce pressure and thus draw liquid up a tube:
Now look at the impellers of the hydrosonic pumps. Note the sloped region at the trailing edge to the holes.
That creates a pressure differential in accord with Bernoulli’s Law. I suspect that sloped region acts as a venturi. The water speeds up (and thus the dynamic pressure increases in one DOF and thus temperature in one DOF increases, decreasing the pressure and thus the temperature in the other two DOF, allowing the water to absorb energy from ambient).
The sharp leading edge of each hole thus has water sucked in due to this pressure differential, which drops pressure immediately downstream of the sharp leading edge, flashing the water to steam and dropping its temperature.
Static pressure tensor is defined as the negative of the average of the diagonal elements of the stress tensor in all three orthogonal planes passing through the point where the stress tensor is calculated, whereas dynamic pressure is the stress tensor over fewer than all 3 translational mode DOF (fewer than all 3 orthogonal planes).
p = −1 / 3 * (the components of the stress tensor)
The 1/3 assumes that the pressure is equipartitioned in all 3 DOF (ie: static pressure). In reality, a more accurate equation for dynamic pressure would be:
p = -1 / DOF * (stress_tensor_x + stress_tensor_y + stress_tensor_z)
static pressure + dynamic pressure = total pressure
p + q = p_0
Where: p = static pressure (Pa); q = dynamic pressure (Pa); p_0 = total pressure (Pa)
Bernoulli’s Principle states that if dynamic pressure increases, static pressure must decrease. In other words, for a flowing fluid, it is trading static pressure (in 3 DOF) for dynamic pressure (in less than 3 DOF). Thus for a compressible fluid, static temperature orthogonal to the plane of flow will decrease, while stagnation temperature in the plane of flow will increase.
The equation for dynamic pressure: q = 1/2 p v²
Where: q = dynamic pressure (Pa); p = fluid density (kg/m³); v = velocity (m/s)
A pressure field is a two-component vector force field, which describes in a covariant way the dynamic pressure of individual particles and the pressure emerging in systems with a number of closely interacting particles.
In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.
Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.
Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles
If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.
“Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!“, you may say… note the ‘for a given volume’ blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit.
We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.
Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V
Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
(1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T
∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF
∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B
See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.
Thus: T = 2 KE / DOF k_B = (m v²) / (DOF k_B)
Now, putting all the above together, if the numerator in the T = (PV / (n k_B)) equation increases (the tensor quantity component of the dynamic pressure increases in a certain DOF due to a particle having higher velocity in that DOF), what happens to T in that DOF?
Simple math shows that temperature will increase (in that DOF) for an increase in dynamic pressure and vice versa.
So I suspect the hydrosonic pump is merely a plethora of venturi ‘cavities’ which convert the water to vapor, then utilizes Bernoulli’s Principle to trade static pressure for dynamic pressure (and thus static temperature in 3 DOF for dynamic temperature in 1 DOF), allowing the vapor to absorb ambient energy.
In effect, it’s increasing the temperature in one DOF while decreasing the temperature in the other 2 DOF, allowing the vapor to draw in energy from the ambient, then ‘repacking’ that energy into 3 DOF which results in rapid heating of the water input to the pump.
Oh finally the most recent identity of the EIC who still have an online presence btw is Fratres Lucis otherwise known to most people as the Illuminati. I hope you enjoyed that little history lesson. Cheers Z.
Just invited the latest alarmism-spewing climastrologist to debate me. Who’s taking odds he won’t even show up? LOL
His name is Rei Chemke, and he just published a cherry-picked “it’s even worse than we think!” alarmist blatherstorm of a paper.
My email to him:
Title: Agitprop posing as science is all you’re good for, Rei?
Body:
You don’t know me, but if you’re in the climate ‘science’ scene, you’re sure to have heard of me… I’m the guy who sees through your mathematical fraudery, the guy able to put the evidence of your mathematical fraudery into terms the average Joe is able to understand, the guy who’s drop-kicked numerous climastrologists and warmist physicists so hard they were forced to concede defeat and run away.
To name a few, Joshua Halpern has tried to best me for years and repeatedly failed in spectacular fashion. Bob Wentworth attempted the same and ended up embarrassing himself when he couldn’t even get simple definitions and concepts correct. Mikey ‘Mouse’ Mann won’t even speak my moniker out loud for fear the intellectual giant will lumber over and crush his balding pate once again.
You’re next. I invite you to debate me, although ‘debate’ is too strong a word… it’ll be me using your head as a speed-bag until you, too, run away screeching that I’m a big ol’ meanie for exposing you to reality, and for exposing the reality of your climate fraud for all the world to see.
Of course, whether you show up or not, I’ll be exposing the climate fraud for what it is… the best that you can hope for is to show up and maybe score a point against me for a grammatical error or somesuch.
You can currently find me here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
@LOL
Don’t be surprised if “Alex” shows up using “Rei Chemke” he loves posing. The Beta Troll is persistent both in determination and stagnant intellect. Yes Alex, I know you stalk this site. Joe lives rent free in your noggin.
@LOL
Did JoNova block you from her site? Just curious, don’t know much about her as I do the others like the luke warmer charlatan Spencer et al.
Holy sheet. Sorry for the blasphemy
I just worked out that the IDEAL GAS LAW variations of PV=nRT and PV=N.kB.T is actually USING a derivative of FARADAYS CONSTANT in calculating atmospheric temperatures.
Yes I am excited. Dont shoot me down.
Instead of typing it all down I have taken a snip of it. If it is too small I will write it down
Correction E- should have said Moles of electrons.
Correction. E should have said Moles of electrons.
more corrections to come. But surely you can see it now.
What is the closest in nature that exists to a perfect blackbody?
If a blackhole was a perfect emitter it would be the perfect blackbody. Alas.
I always just analogize it to a blacktop road. How close is that to a perfect blackbody? Would a black high iron content rock be even better?
They can get cooking hot in the sun so they must be pretty close. 960w/m^2(avg solar forcing after atmosphere directly under sun) = 88C(190F).
@Everyone
What would happen if you did make an over unity device? 70% more energy out than in? Isn’t that a big deal?
Got it. The Ideal Gas Law Constant “R” hides the ratio of a Mole of electrons in 1 Mole of Air 14.5189 moles of electrons to 1 Mole of Air.
Boltzman Constant of 1.380649E-23
Total Electrons in one mole of air 8.7434798917173E+24
Thus 8.74347989E+24 * 1.380649E-23 / 14.5189 = 8.31446 The gas Constant
We could literally redefine the Gas Constant in the IGL to factor in the electrons and not atoms / molecules.
i.e R and kB can now be 1.380649E-23 / 14.5189 = 9.50932892E-25 J/K or J.Me-1.K-1
Not that I could see that being practical.
Nepal wrote:
“A closed cavity filled at thermal equilibrium fills with perfect blackbody radiation.”
That’s what you’ve been told. You’ve been misled. A closed cavity with walls which have the dipole moments which allow the radiation field to do work upon the walls, and the walls to do work upon the radiation field, will fill with a blackbody spectrum. Perfectly reflecting walls, of which I’ve provided several such instances (to include dark quantum states which do not and cannot absorb off-resonance radiation and thus must reflect 100% of the incident radiation; and graybody objects which are perfect reflectors at thermodynamic equilibrium by definition) cannot equilibrate the radiation to a blackbody spectrum. That’s why Kirchhoff and Planck both had to use a thermalizer in the form of a small chunk of graphite or carbon in their cavities in attempting to extend the idealized blackbody case to all other materials… Kirchhoff, in using a perfectly-reflecting cavity, could not get the cavity walls to equilibrate the radiation, so the equilibration was performed by that thermalizer. In so doing, he never moved off the idealized blackbody case… he didn’t extend Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all materials.
Planck, in attempting to validate Kirchhoff’s findings so he could get his equations to work, had to redefine blackbody objects to include (indeed, to be predicated upon) transmissivity… idealized blackbody objects are opaque by definition.
Planck had a weird notion of photons… almost as if he analogized them to a worm burrowing through dirt, being ablated (successively absorbed) as they went. That’s why he stated that even a perfectly-reflecting material of infinite depth would still be an idealized blackbody.
Had you studied history rather than clinging to outdated notions that bolster your incorrect take on reality, you’d have realized this. Alas, you didn’t. Even now you cling to your incorrectitude.
CD Marshall:
No, Jo Nova’s not blocked me. I’ve posted many times on her site. She welcomes my insight.
Nepal wrote:
“2) the energy is in the form of heat, not work/electricity.”
Energy is energy, no matter the form. It obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behaviors regardless. ‘Heat’ being by definition “an energy flux” and free energy being by definition the ability to perform work, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of energy.
Nepal wrote:
“But all current physics says this sort of device is impossible.”
Only because current physics discounts the fact that the universe is in a false vacuum state (there is a lower energy density state to which the universe could fall) and the fact that there is no energy penalty for creating an artificially-lower quantum vacuum energy density locally (as in a well-shielded Casimir cavity, or via inducing bound electrons to fall below their typical ground-state orbital radius), and thus that it is possible to extract energy from the quantum vacuum… the largest pool of energy there is, given that it is literally universe-wide.
CD Marshall wrote:
“If a blackhole was a perfect emitter it would be the perfect blackbody. Alas.”
There’s a reason idealized blackbody objects do not and cannot exist… they are contradictions.
Think about it… first, they must absorb all radiation incident upon them. They can only do that if they are at 0 K, otherwise photons emitted by an object at, say, 0.001 K would have to ascend an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT to incide upon the idealized blackbody. They can only be absorbed if they can do work, and all photons can only do work upon the idealized blackbody object if that object is at 0 K.
Now, they must also emit all radiation they absorb… how does an object at 0 K emit? Energy density at 0 K is zero, thus temperature at zero energy density is, of course, 0 K. How does an object emit when there’s no energy density gradient? It doesn’t.
Look at the S-B equation:
An idealized blackbody object assumes emission to 0 K by definition. So how does an object at 0 K emit to 0 K? That’s another violation of 2LoT.
This is how the climate loons have come up with their “energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient” blather, thus their “backradiation” blather, thus their “CO2 in a cooler atmosphere can warm a warmer surface” blather… the entire edifice of CAGW crumbles when one realizes that they’ve been treating graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects all along.
The climate alarmists misuse the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping ε onto that (sometimes) …
q = ε σ T^4
Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate alarmists to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
https://i.imgur.com/2Bd25TG.png
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.
Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their insane take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?
They cite Clausius out of context… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. They’re idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
Ssooo they can’t be right saying it makes 70% more energy out than in.
Doesn’t even look that hard to make. That wheel seems to be the most complicated part. Some guy in his shop would have made a free energy device by now if it could be made this way.
Not unless they’re tapping ambient energy, or a pool of energy that we don’t know exists, we deny exists or we deny can be tapped. The only such pools of energy available would be the quantum fields, notably the EM component of the quantum vacuum (as extracting energy from any other of the 37 known quantum fields is something we can’t do yet).
1 Higgs boson
1 photon
3 electroweak massive boson: Z and W±
3 charged lepton: electron, muon and tau.
3 neutral leptons: the neutrinos corresponding to electron, muon and tau.
6 quark (3 colors each): up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top.
8 gluon
Do you have a link to this wheel? Are you talking about the hydrosonic pump? I believe that’s an application of Bernoulli’s Principle, as outlined in a post above… it flashes the water to vapor, then accelerates the vapor, which increases temperature in one DOF (Degree of Freedom) while decreasing temperature in the other 2 DOF. Thus, those other 2 DOF can absorb energy from ambient, whereupon the energy is ‘repacked’ into all 3 DOF via random collisions after exiting the hydrosonic pump. The only work the motor is doing is in increasing the temperature of the vapor in that 1 DOF, which doesn’t entail anything other than accelerating it to take advantage of Bernoulli’s Principle.
As proof of what I state, some select Planck quotes:
[5, § 4]:
““Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through. The other part is reflected inward and according as the fraction transmitted is larger or smaller, the surface seems to emit more or less intense radiation.”
This isn’t how emission works, of course. This is why Planck claims that the photon state at the surface and in the interior of a material are identical…
[5, § 32]:
“Consider then any ray coming from the surface of the medium and directed inward; it must have the same intensity as the opposite ray coming from the interior. A further immediate consequence of this is that the total state of radiation of the medium is the same on the surface as in the interior.”
… as I said, it’s almost as if he likens photons to worms burrowing through dirt, being ablated (successively absorbed) as they went. This, of course, isn’t how reflection works… it is entirely a surface phenomenon. You’ll note his reference to transmissivity… idealized blackbody objects are opaque by definition, zero transmissivity.
[5, § 10]:
“A rough surface having the property of completely transmitting the incident radiation is described as ‘black’ .”
Again, he redefines idealized blackbody objects as though they rely upon transmissivity.
And as proof that Planck redefined idealized blackbodies, he admits it in a footnote:
[5, § 10]:
“In defining a blackbody Kirchhoff also assumes that the absorption of incident rays takes place in a layer ‘infinitely thin’. We do not include this in our definition.”
Planck’s confusion has traveled down through the years to further confuse Nepal, who clings to the incorrectitudes of Planck for reasons he’s not yet stated. It should be noted that without the confusion by Planck, CAGW crumbles… I’m not stating that’s Nepal’s reason, but it is strange that he absolutely refuses to educate himself, continuing to prattle on about these incorrectitudes for some unknown reason. This was the same reason that ‘evenminded’ refused to educate himself, clinging to ancient and outdated knowledge because only then could he advance his “CAGW is caused by continual 2LoT violations” drivel. LOL
Further, what Nepal claims Planck to have said (that all closed cavities of arbitrary material are idealized blackbody objects) isn’t what Planck said!
[5, § 51]:
“. . . in a vacuum bounded by totally reflecting walls any state of radiation may persist.”
Which is why, in attempting to validate Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, he was forced to use a small chunk of graphite or carbon as a thermalizer… as I said, neither Kirchhoff nor Planck could get their blackbody spectrum in a cavity with totally reflecting walls without that thermalizer… so they cheated in attempting to extend the idealized blackbody case of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation to all materials. Planck tacitly admits it above.
But as I’ve shown, given that emissivity and absorptivity are pegged to 1 all the time for idealized blackbody objects, what exactly is Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation describing? Nothing except the definition of idealized blackbody objects in one case (thermodynamic equilibrium, the only time that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation applies), when that applies to idealized blackbody objects all the time, by definition.
That’s aside from the fact that idealized blackbody objects do not and cannot exist… so Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation might as well be describing the blackbody quality of rainbow glitter farting unicorns in this case. LOL
Further, given that, as I’ve shown above, emissivity and absorptivity go to zero at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects, and given that Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation only applies at thermodynamic equilibrium, in the graybody case, Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation is indeterminate in the one case which it applies.
So it applies to things which do not and cannot exist (but only describes that which they are defined by), and it’s indeterminate for real things… and this is what Nepal defends as rigorous ‘science’. LOL
Further, Planck wrote:
[5, § 46]:
“When any emitting and absorbing bodies are in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the part of the energy of definite color emitted by a body A, which is absorbed by another body B, is equal to the part of the energy of the same color emitted by B which is absorbed by A. Since a quantity of energy emitted causes a decrease of the heat of the body, and a quantity of energy absorbed an increase of the heat of the body, it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”
Notwithstanding his misuse of the word “heat” (heat is definitionally an energy flux, he’s referring to energy density… temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant… he should have stated that “a quantity of energy emitted causes a decrease of the energy density of the body, and a quantity of energy absorbed an increase of the energy density of the body”), what he’s describing is not thermodynamic equilibrium.
Thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as the minimum of Helmholtz Free Energy, a quiescent state. Emission and absorption are not quiescence. When Helmholtz Free Energy equals zero, thermodynamic equilibrium has been reached. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work so they cannot be absorbed. Energy density gradient is zero, so there is no impetus for photon generation.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy (J)
U = internal energy (J)
T = absolute temp (K)
S = system final entropy (J K-1)
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
As ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody total emissive power as compared to idealized blackbody object emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. Do remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Helmholtz Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Helmholtz Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorbed / incident
ρ = reflected / incident
τ = transmitted / incident
α + ρ + τ = incident = 1
For opaque surfaces τ = 0 ∴ α + ρ = incident = 1
If α = 0, 0 + ρ = incident = 1 ∴ ρ = 1 … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
Planck had several fundamental misconceptions which the climastrologists rely upon today to further their CAGW alarmism. Correcting this is central to defenestrating CAGW.
neat
It’d be neat to see what happens when some of those predators become ‘super-predators’, preying upon their own kind when other food isn’t available. They could distinguish the ‘super-predators’ by making them bigger and giving them little Tyrannosaurus Rex arms and legs. LOL
And a ‘growing grass’ field which the prey must eat to gain energy, rather than just standing still to gain energy. Too many prey, and they deplete the ‘growing grass’ field.
And the occasional asteroid strike that wipes out portions of the map. LOL
That could be a really cool game… each person picks whether they’re predator or prey, sets up the parameters of their organisms… you could even set it up so a person could ‘take control’ of one or a group of them and steer them around the map, allowing the neural net to learn dodging and hunting techniques by example.
Of course, if the predators win (kill all the prey), the predators ultimately lose, too.
There definitely is a game concept here
Hey, T rexes had f off back legs. Terrible analogies at play re. the powers that be versus vaccine, climate sceptics.
So nature has created natural nuclear reactors over the millennia, an odd but fascinating concept.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/kraus2/
So did they rip this idea off?
https://foxdoing.com/best-portable-ac-blast/blastauxiliary.php?adgroupid=136348191825&campaignid=17308695092&creative=600502826309&device=c&loc_physicall_ms=9015401&loc_interest_ms=9015401&network=ytv&placement=youtube.com&sourceid=sourceid&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1tGUBhDXARIsAIJx01mDKtrBCUyj15ZJWMSFOHQLTLrgY202IT62eyeS-Bj2S1K5exY5xyYaAveEEALw_wcB&gbraid=0AAAAABqSQV2y3qIPdMUvAjlnPz3bE8iXD&wbraid=CjoKCAjws8yUBhAQEioAlamVr8m8KpuDfvtUxVUuD0rlYqY2nCCbt80sSeAlNtbo60VRcMBWdxMaAgFN&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1tGUBhDXARIsAIJx01mDKtrBCUyj15ZJWMSFOHQLTLrgY202IT62eyeS-Bj2S1K5exY5xyYaAveEEALw_wcB
The laws of nature always get in the way of a free lunch.
I Recently Discovered How To Refrigerate Every Room In My House In Under 5-Minutes, WITHOUT Using My Home’s Costly AC… a misting system. Yes, it works even in the “humid” (which isn’t, really) area I’m in… as temperature climbs, relative humidity drops, per the psychrometric chart. On hot days we see anywhere from 20 to 40% RH.
I built a reverse osmosis unit / demineralizer that can produce 400 GPD. The misting system doesn’t use anywhere near that, but we use the RO water for washing cars, drinking, etc. The misters themselves have 0.3 mm holes, the mist is completely gone before it hits the ground.
So rather than attempt to mist around the outside of the entire house, I set it up so it mists intensely in the enclosed back yard. On hot, windless days, that traps a layer of cooler air near the ground in the backyard, while the humidity tends to convect away (humid air is more buoyant than dry air). Not much difference in RH of the cool air and the bulk air.
Just pull that cool air into the house with a box fan in a window (the area of the window not occupied by box fan occupied by curtain to block the air flowing back out), open the windows in other rooms a crack, and you’ve got a nice flow of cool air throughout the house.
We’ve seen 100 F temperatures, and we still haven’t run the A/C. The house was a comfortable 76 F.
Much better to use 10 GPH worth of water and 55 W worth of electricity for the fan than 7.2 kW on the A/C unit. The RO waste water goes to watering the lawn, which we would have had to do anyway, so in effect, we’re getting the cooling for nearly free in terms of water usage. That water would have been used anyway.
The misting system has a 40 µm whole-house filter with an integrated scraper to flush it, then the water goes to a washable 20 µm filter, then to a replaceable 1 µm filter, then through the RO filter, then through the demineralizer resin bed, then through a finishing activated charcoal filter.
So far, we’ve not had any issues with mineral buildup on the misters. If we do get that in the future, a simple soak of the stainless steel misters in vinegar will knock the minerals loose, then a quick brushing and they can be put back in service. They just screw in / screw out of their holders, so it’s easy to take them down and clean them.
76° F is way too high for me, I like 68° F.
Wow, 68 F? That’s insanely cold to me. 75 F seems about right to me. It starts getting uncomfortably warm above 85 F. 95 F is just bleh.
I lived in the SF Bay Area before, and I was always chilled to the bone. On the few rare days that everyone else was complaining about how hot it was, I was soaking it in.
The only time I like it cold is when I’m working hard… the colder it is, the harder I can work without overheating. I don’t have much of a throttle when I’m doing physical work.
I could get the temperature down more by partitioning the backyard so that the area around the window where we pull the cool air in is blocked off from the rest of the yard… it’s a little dogleg along the side of the house about 12′ wide by 40′ long. If I concentrated the misters in that small area and blocked that area off so air couldn’t flow out to the rest of the yard, it’d get cooler. I might try that.
Now, to evaporate a gallon of water requires 8092 BTU. So we’re absorbing something on the order of 80,000 BTU hr-1 at 10 GPH. That’s equivalent to 6.66 refrigerant tons worth of cooling. That’s enough to cool a house twice this size, considering that they recommend 450-650 sq. ft. per refrigerant ton.
Let’s calculate the SEER of that:
SEER = BTU hr-1 Wh-1 = 80,000 BTU hr-1 / 55 Wh = 1454.5454
You’ll not get that from any compressor-based A/C unit.
Of course, that doesn’t take into account the energy input from the sun in the yard, but still, it beats the pants off a compressor-based A/C unit.
80,000 BTU hr-1 = 23445.685614 W / 55 W = 426.285397
So we’re getting 426 W worth of cooling for every 1 W we expend.
I could take that to a SEER of ∞ just by removing the attic hatch, turning off the fan, and allowing the air to flow in from open windows, up into the attic and out the attic vents, but I’m not sure how much airflow there’d be, and I’d have to mist around the entire perimeter of the house so each window was sucking in cool air.
Oh, another thing I did… I quieted the box fan. I disassembled the fan, and on the trailing edge of the fan blades, I used clear tape, positioned such that it’s got a camber. I got the idea from the wings of owls, used to quiet their flight. It cut the noise of the fan by about half, subjectively, without affecting airflow.
So what I did was rough up the fan blades with 300 grit sandpaper where I was going to stick the tape, then clean the fan blades with rubbing alcohol, let it dry, then I folded the tape over the trailing edge of the fan blades, sticking it to each side of the fan blade, such that it had an arc to it, then trimmed the tape so it was about 3/4″ overhanging the trailing edge. I used my wife’s serrated scissors, giving the cut edge serrations.
It helps to get a 1/2″ copper tube and bend it to match the arc of the fan blade trailing edge, then stick the tape to one side of the fan blade, then hold the non-sticky part of the tape against the copper tube and fold the tape back on itself, then stick the tape to the other side of the fan blade. That way you get a consistent camber in the tape. Then trim the tape once you’ve got the entire fan blade trailing edge covered.
Oh… a pro-tip… inform your wife before using her serrated fabric scissors on tape… for some reason, they’re very protective of their ‘special scissors’. LOL
I cleaned off the adhesive from the tape that had gunked up the scissor blades with naptha, but that just freaked her out even more. Women. LOL
Here’s a (very rough) graphical approximation of what I did to the fan:
That’s very good…
Hilarious comic. Reminds me of the climate science overseers. Had a chat over at YT about you Joe, she didn’t respond of course because she can’t. By ‘unique’ I of course mean “going Postma” which is evidently only legal for Leftists. But this is the chat…
malawby
3 weeks ago
I’m not sure Friends of Science has a real handle on the understanding of the science behind climate alarmism. You have a great resource there in Canada by the name of Joseph E Postma and his Youtube channel is the Climate of Sophistry. Best check this out.
Michelle Stirling
3 weeks ago
Joseph’s work is very interesting. It does not quite align with our perspective but we appreciate his contributions to better understanding climate and his challenge to the claimed ‘consensus’ view.
CD Marshall
3 weeks ago
@Michelle Stirling Postma’s understanding of the climate is very accurate. I do understand his ‘unique’ personality and approach isn’t for everyone but his intellectual understanding of the climate and physics is top tier. You could benefit from his understanding of physics.
Quantum mechanics/thermodynamics confirms his understanding that CO2 does not warm the planet. NASA even had an energy budget at one time that did not have ghgs in it. Joe talks to many scientists via email and does not make it public.
I’m guessing certain scientist(s) doesn’t want him around for certain egos can’t handle being wrong. Claiming cold heats hot is the pinnacle of being wrong and in that regard any scientist claiming that is wrong.
P=e sigma A (Th^4-Tc^4)
Net radiated power, emissivity, Stefan’s constant, radiating power, T of radiator/T of surroundings.
Rate of cooling isn’t ‘increasing’ surface T not how it works.
(Th^4-Tc^4) surface/troposphere is part of the same system, energy flow moves both ways in a system. There is NO heat transfer from cold to hot at all. The net energy transfer only is the heat. Neither of the energies are heat. Only their difference is the heat.
1st LOT Delta U=Q-W (work done by the system).
One thing I’ve noticed that many scientists have a hard time admitting two things 1) they are wrong 2) they don’t know.
Nice one CD.
What “perspective” is there possibly to not align with? What are you doing if you’re not going for the kill when the shot is open? Yes, either they can’t admit they’ve been wrong and have overlooked what is trivial, or, they don’t comprehend. Or, they’re gatekeeping – that’s the other option.
Has anyone done any research on cosmic rays and the validity of how they react or change the climate? I’ve lost a ton of research in my pc crash yes, I had 3 backups and lost 2 of them. The 3rd was poorly outdated which is the one I am rebuilding now. I seem to recall as the Earth’s magnetic field declines clouds reduce. Is that how it goes, and more cosmic rays reaches the surface? But then I’ve heard cosmic rays are pivotal in cloud seeding in the upper atmosphere.
Seems I asked this before and have no odea where the information was written down if I did. What I have on cosmic rays is nothing.
As usual Thanks for the huge help and insights you guys provide. I couldn’t piss off climate clowns half as much as I am without your help.
Is this “photon belt” real and if so does it influence our star? Or is it more astrology guised as astrophysics?
“Mitch Battros, author of Solar Rain, states the Photon Belt will affect the Sun and cause more frequent CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections), and all these events will create harsher weather conditions. According to Battros, the Sun entered the Photon Belt in the summer of 1998, and as a result, the density and frequency of solar flares increased. Battros also states that when the Earth enters the Photon Belt, the vibration of the Earth and us will change.”
Anything mentioning “the vibration of the Earth and us” is woo of the highest order. These are the same sort of people claiming they’re channeling aliens. LOL
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Photon_belt
Gravitational lensing is real, but the amount of gravity necessary to create a “photon belt” orbiting the Pleiades star cluster would be beyond imagination… and those photons would out of necessity, orbit close to that gravitating mass… and that mass, were Earth to pass through its gravitational field (and thus through the purported “photon belt”), would spaghettify our planet… and we’re not moving closer to the Pleiades star cluster, we’re moving away from it (and hence from that purported “photon belt”)
They’ve had several failed predictions as to when the planet would pass into this purported “photon belt”. They even associated themselves with doomsday groups in 2012. LOL
It sounded off. I’m glad my concerns were well founded. I never heard of a photon belt.
CD Marshall wrote:
“I’ve lost a ton of research in my pc crash yes, I had 3 backups and lost 2 of them.”
Been there, done that. What I did was buy a huge honking external hard drive, then I set up partitions which equaled the size of my internal drive down to the byte (and one smaller 5GB partition at the front of the drive).
The smaller partition is for CloneZilla… all I have to do is reboot, boot from the external USB, Clonezilla loads up, I do a ‘partition-to-partition’ clone of the internal hard drive to one of the partitions on the external drive, then it automatically reboots.
I rotate the backups, overwriting the oldest and renaming each partition with the date of the backup, with the format YYYY-MM-DD. I do that about once a month. I can roll back 6 months.
Then I’ve got a USB stick which automatically copies the latest backup to itself, as a backup of the backups.
If I ever lose data, just look at the clone drives. If I ever need to restore a corrupted drive, just clone the latest backup onto the internal drive. If the internal hard drive crashes irretrievably, replace it, clone the latest backup onto it, and I’m back up and running.
I do the same for my phone… I’ve got a dedicated external drive just for backing up my phone… because the backups are smaller than for a computer, I’ve got every single one I’ve ever done. I can roll back to any date right back to the day I bought it. I do the backup via TWRP on the phone, then use ADB pull to pull the backup to the computer’s external drive.
That saved my bacon more times than I care to admit as I burrowed through the code of the phone, stripping out corporate phone-home spyware, Google aGPS and NFC tracking, ads, etc.
In fact, if you’ve got an Android phone, the Advertising ID is a sham… they claim that you can change it to prevent advertisers building up a dossier of your preferences, but if you dig into the database holding that data, you’re changing something only you see… Google and all the ad-platform vendors use a “fake-advertising-id” (that’s actually the tag for it in the code) which never changes. Before I figured out how to completely get rid of it, I changed that ‘fake-ad-id’ to a NSFW phrase. LOL
So yeah looked into gravitational lensing, “mass bends light” Einstein’s theory of general relativity. A black hole or a star with incredible mass, nothing we’d ever want to get near.
So satellites are showing more energy leaving to space, the models are claiming it is less. So where can I find an updated versions of this? Courtesy of Jo Nova.
The ERBE team attempted to adjust satellite altitude in 1988, and it nearly destroyed the satellite, so they decided to just let it drift downward in altitude. It started at 610 km in 1985 and reached 585 km by 2000. That was found to cause a small systemic increase in ERBS Nonscanner TOA flux over the 15 years because the satellite altitude change wasn’t included in the ERBS Nonscanner inversion algorithm.
Edition 3 of the data was released 5/2005. It did take into account satellite altitude change.
Didn’t make much difference. Sometimes the models don’t even get the sign correct. They cannot be relied upon for anything if they can’t even get the sign correct. Jo Nova had an article about that recently.
Click to access wong.pdf
A question for a chemist…
Gavin Cawley
@Gavin_Cawley
Replying to
@MarshallCd
@CColose
and 2 others
You are only looking at one half of Henry’s Law. The other half says that the net transfer of CO2 is proportional to the difference in the partial pressure in the atmosphere and concentration in the surface water. The temperature affects the constant of proportionality (1/2)
So if the partial pressure in the atmosphere rises, all things being otherwise equal, the flow will be into the oceans not out of it. Which effect wins? The fact that the natural environment is a net carbon sink suggests it is the partial pressure. (2/2)
So ARE they measuring DWLWR increase to the surface or is it being modeled? As Joe has explained the measure claimed is energy, it’s potential to heat anything is still based on the laws of thermodynamics.
They aren’t measuring the energy being absorbed back into the surface.
They aren’t measuring an increase in T from DWLWR.
Which is why they switch (neat how climate science can so that isn’t it?) back tot he TOA and claim it is forcing a new T by “slowing cooling”.
Which I can’t find anything in this equation of heat radiation that says rate of cooling increases the original T.
Remember, these are the same people who claim that if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, that natural sinks will continue removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the same rate for some time afterward due to some purported “inertia”… as if partial pressure has “inertia”. LOL
Pressure is an instantaneous measure, defined as Force acting normal to the surface per area. So where they come up with this “inertia” is beyond me… probably the same place they came up with their claim that CO2 is a “global warming” gas, that water vapor is a “global warming” gas, etc.
IOW, they pulled it straight out of their fudge-factories. LOL
As you correctly point out, Henry’s Law operates upon partial pressure. It’s almost as if they’re wholly incognizant of why the oceans absorb / outgas CO2.
Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
I do find it interesting the omitted the hot in (T^4)
So this fellow is a chemist I’m guessing, his reply to me:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/ocean-co2-uptake/
He’s friends with the notorious Eli Rabbet I guess, or at least mentions him.
Pierre tossed me this a while ago as the natural ocean buffer against pH increase which correlates well with pH measurements.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2
Underwater volcanoes eject calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor and that is the buffer that controls the pH of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
CD Marshall wrote:
“So yeah looked into gravitational lensing, “mass bends light” Einstein’s theory of general relativity. A black hole or a star with incredible mass, nothing we’d ever want to get near.”
Yeah, that’s why I suspect the CMB to be a ‘fun-house mirror’ of photons from distant galaxies which are still within our cosmological particle horizon, and from very distant galaxies which are now outside our cosmological particle horizon (but which emitted those photons when they were still within our cosmological particle horizon), ‘smeared’ by gravitational lensing and interaction with matter and red-shifted by universal expansion.
So I suspect the universe is very, very much larger than our cosmological particle horizon.
If that’s true, the singular “Big Bang” as we describe it, wasn’t. We’d have to come up with a new explanation. I suspect it’s more like a “Big Bounce”, and the universe has experienced many such cycles… eventually all energy & matter gets sucked into black holes, those black holes coalesce into one, gravity being a curvature of space-time due to mass, if there is no energy nor matter in a volume, there is no space-time (a volume with no energy and no matter collapses space to zero, the speed of light increases to infinity because time ceases to exist), so once that singular black hole remaining at the end of a cycle sucks in the last bit of energy and matter from the universe (or some short time immediately before that eventuality), there is no gravity (no space-time, no curvature of space-time), there’s nothing holding that black hole together anymore, and it explodes, starting the process again.
I suspect that as more stars go supernova and more black holes form and start sucking in matter and energy, the amount of energy put out by stars will balance with the energy sucked into black holes, halting universal expansion, then eventually reversing it as quantum vacuum energy density falls.
And if that’s the case, there won’t even be matter near the ‘end’ of this iteration of the universe… as quantum vacuum energy density falls, more and more matter will find it easier to ‘unwind’ back into energy (dehadronization), as I showed how to do in a well-shielded Casimir cavity in a prior post to harvest the energy for our use. It’ll be only energy. Once that energy is all sucked into that last remaining black hole, space-time outside the black hole ceases to exist, thus gravity (curvature of space-time) ceases to exist, the black hole expands to form a new universe, and as it expands, energy density falls… temperature being a measure of energy density… and the cycle repeats..
Have you guys heard of Prof. Pierre Friedlingstein? I was supposed to be in awe of his presence and claims that ALL current increase in CO2 is anthropocentric.
This is his paper.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1917/2022/
UK Government report states all UK Airports must close within the next 10 years, beef and lamb is to be banned, and construction of new buildings must cease in the name of Climate Change.
The report states that all airports must close between 2020 and 2029 excluding Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast airports, which can only stay open on the condition that transfers to and from the airport are done via rail.
All remaining airports must then close between 2030 and 2049 as to meet the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050 every citizen of the United Kingdom must “stop using aeroplanes” for a significant period of time.
When I talk about preparation, this is what I believe all of us should be very seriously preparing against. They probably really do intend to do this.
Click to access 2m5fa9.pdf
https://expose-news.com/2021/07/08/uk-government-report-states-all-uk-airports-must-close-within-the-next-10-years-beef-and-lamb-is-to-be-banned-and-construction-of-new-buildings-must-cease-in-the-name-of-climate-change/#:~:text=A%20report%20produced%20by%20Oxford,of%20zero%20emissions%20by%202050
@AltSkull48
And they are coming for our guns, something they have been salivating for.
How does he claim to come by this conclusion? The isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2?
It’s a very easy timeline to follow… the now-ended Modern Grand Maximum warmed the planet, this warmed the oceans which didn’t absorb as much CO2 as they otherwise would have, thus the balance of outgassing / absorption was disrupted, thus atmospheric CO2 increased. Upwelling IR increased over ~72 years by ~7 W m-2, even as surface temperature showed no statistically significant trend.
Now that the Modern Grand Maximum has ended, we’re seeing the planet cooling at an increasing rate over time. Remember when the ‘experts’ were claiming that we may slip into another Little Ice Age because the modern solar cycles have energy levels which they predicted will rival the Dalton Minimum, and may even rival the Maunder Minimum? Yeah. A redux of the ’70s global cooling scare.
So we have the majority 12C, we have 13C, and we have 14C (which is radioactive).
Thus we have the 13C/12C ratio, and we have the 14C/12C ratio.
Now, the climate alarmists claim these ratios are decreasing because we’re burning fossil fuels, which is slightly depleted of 13C and nearly entirely depleted of 14C.
But they discount or minimize the effects of other processes which affect those ratios.
For instance, 14C is produced from cosmogenic radiation which produces neutrons which interact with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Do you suppose during a Solar Grand Maximum, the radiation pressure from the sun would reduce 14C production in the upper atmosphere by reducing the ability of cosmic rays to reach Earth? Do you suppose 14C production would then ramp up a bit when solar activity died down?
They claim:
“Since the 1990s the decrease of Δ14CO2 has been almost linear at about 5‰ year−1, now driven primarily by fossil fuel emissions (Graven et al., 2012b; Levin et al., 2010). ”
Why is the decrease in 14C linear if anthropogenic CO2 emission has increased non-linearly? Wouldn’t that linear decrease be more attributable to a successive cessation of nuclear testing, nuclear testing now done underground by rogue nations, and natural decay of the radioactive isotope?
Do you suppose volcanic 13C emission might change over time due to magma composition changes, as was measured at Mt. Etna?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00445-010-0423-2
“The comparison of our measurements to data reported in previous work highlights a temporal trend of systematic increase of δ13C values of Etna CO2 from ~ −4‰, in the 1970’s and the 1980’s, to ~ −1‰ at the present time (2009). This shift toward more positive δ13C values matches a concurrent change in magma composition and an increase in the eruption frequency and energy.”
Why was the 13C/12C ratio already decreasing in 1850 (and long before) if it’s anthropogenic in origin?
Why is the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the overall CO2 concentration trends? Doesn’t that point to natural emission as the cause?
If the 13C/12C relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can he claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
I thought C14 was also made in solar storms or proton events as it were.
Philip pointed this out a while ago although I have no citations to go with it. Can’t site the original comment (on here somewhere) but I think it went something like this not sure if it’s all he commented on.
“Thanks for the link to Ed Berry’s paper. I missed that one (I am a fan).
This whole issue of Carbon 13 / Carbon 12 isotope ratio is in my opinion a heavily defended mine field.
Some basic thoughts. It is all about fractionation and therefore it is all about energy and mass.
In any volatile fractionation process the light mass fraction is preferentially released because for a given temperature the kinetic energy in the light volatile fraction will be higher. So, for the abiotic release of carbon dioxide molecules from their main gas reservoir (seawater) the surface solar forced warming of the water will preferentially expel the C12 fraction into the atmosphere.
Now here comes the “Oh, but bit”
Oh, but we have measured the C13/C12 ratio in the oceans and there is more C13 in the ocean than C12.
How did you make that measurement? Using Peedee Formation Belemnite or its modern equivalent? If so, why do you expect a mineral carbonate that has undergone crystal fractionation, which because again it is a mass and energy process that will automatically prefer C13 to C12, to be representative of the ocean water free carbon dioxide gas component?
N.B. because crystal fractionation is a “settling” process, and because we are now preferentially setting heavier C13 carbonate ions into the crystal structure, then the heavier isotope will be captured more often. So, we are now two distinct fractionation processes away from the atmosphere. (This is getting tough to believe). I have asked for and will be happy to hear of a study that directly measures the isotope ratio of free carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in seawater (not an easy task because of the confounding issue of the bicarbonate ions).
Now for the biology part of the story. Plants preferentially acquire C12 over C13, but why is that? Well in simple terms the photosynthetic process of assimilation requires energy to function, and so it is easier for the plants to “push” the lighter C12 atom back up the chemical gradient than the more massive C13 atom (loose terms and woolly analogy but you get the idea -again it’s all about energy and mass).
So now for the [1], the dilution of C13 and C14 by the addition of light isotope fraction C12 to the air by burning fossil fuels. This is assumed to be the only source, however the half-life of C14 is 5,730 years, so what if the age of the upwelling ocean water is itself 5,000 years old [2]? In this case would we not expect a release to the atmosphere from the ocean of C14 depleted carbon dioxide?
Notice also, that the δ13C is not always perfectly anticorrelated with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. A time when this anticorrelation is less prevalent is from 1995-1996. During this period, another process must be involved in controlling carbon dioxide levels. Perhaps oceanic uptake fluctuated more during this period but was relatively constant during the rest of time shown on the graph. [1]
Really? You don’t say.
Lots of moving parts and confounding issues here.
Reference
[1] Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
[2] England, M.H 1995 The Age of Water and Ventilation Timescales in a Global Ocean Model.
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/25/11/1520-0485_1995_025_2756_taowav_2_0_co_2.xml
That’s a very good point… endergonic and endothermic processes will generally favor lighter isotopes (it takes less external energy to ascend an energy density gradient with a lighter isotope), whereas exergonic and exothermic processes will generally favor heavier (it takes less energy to descend an energy density gradient with a heavier isotope).
For example, as water vapor condenses (exothermic) in rain clouds, the heavier water isotopes (18O and 2H) become enriched in the liquid phase while the lighter isotopes (16O and 1H) remain in the vapor phase.
For example, as liquid water phase changes to solid ice (exothermic), the heavier water isotopes become enriched in the solid phase, whereas the lighter isotopes remain in the liquid phase.
For example, as liquid water evaporates (endothermic), the molecules with lighter isotopes will evaporate first.
For example, ice core samples show there is less 18O and D during cold periods than there is during warm. It takes more energy to evaporate heavier-isotope water molecules from the ocean’s surface and as the water vapor is advected poleward, the heavier-isotope water molecules preferentially rain out before reaching the poles.
For example, photosynthesis (endergonic) preferentially partitions 12C into plants, rather than 13C or 14C.
In general, the higher the temperature, the less the difference between the equilibrium isotopic compositions of any two isotopic species (because the difference in quantum vacuum zero point energy between the species become smaller).
As always, it’s all about the energy density gradient, for every process.
Mheh…
“(it takes less energy to descend an energy density gradient with a heavier isotope)”
should be –
“(it moves more energy to descend an energy density gradient with a heavier isotope)”
Now, we can look at the 18O/16O ratio:
As you can see, the top ~250 feet of ice core has a decreasing 18O/16O ratio… that indicates cooling.
As temperature decreases, 18O decreases:
And we see a clear signal of decreasing 18O in the first graphic for the most recent ice.
So the climate loons screaming “it’s all anfripumooorphic CO2, duurrrrrrhh!” might have to take into account that temperature has decreased, thus heavier isotopes are less abundant, thus the C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios are being affected by that temperature change. A colder planet will outgas a higher proportion of lighter isotope CO2 from the oceans and preferentially absorb heavier isotopes.
I’m not saying that’s the sole effect, but it’s an effect, and they don’t even address it.
Mheh…
“the top ~250 feet”
should be –
“the top ~250 meters”
Get some rest bud, you did good so far.
CDM,
Glad that you have raised this point.
I will note any developments with interest.
This is an army commercial
Philip, I relayed all your info to Prof. Pierre Friedlingstein who is an IPCC celebrity I guess, never heard of him myself.
So far all he has done is tell me to read his work.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1917/2022/
If you have time (and the want) I’d appreciate your thoughts on the paper.
I was wondering if anyone had the evidence or citations for this:
“In any volatile fractionation process the light mass fraction is preferentially released because for a given temperature the kinetic energy in the light volatile fraction will be higher. So, for the abiotic release of carbon dioxide molecules from their main gas reservoir (seawater) the surface solar forced warming of the water will preferentially expel the C12 fraction into the atmosphere.”
The “experts” want proof of this, which makes me question the “expert”.
The kinetic energy will be higher for lighter atomic mass atoms? That doesn’t sound right, especially given that for atoms at exactly the same kinetic temperature, all will have exactly the same kinetic energy regardless of atomic mass… the heavier ones will have lower velocity, the lighter ones will have higher velocity, but their kinetic energy will be exactly the same at the same kinetic temperature.
Temperature is, in the translational mode energy sense, a measure of atomic or molecular kinetic energy, after all.
CO2: mass = 44.0095 amu, 7.306961098775001e-26 kg
40Ar: mass = 39.962383123824 amu, 6.63590925530233e-26 kg
Assume:
3 DOF
T = 287.64 K
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1)
v = √((T DOF k_B) / m)
CO2: √ 287.64 K * 3 * 1.380649e−23 J·K−1 / 7.306961098775001e-26 kg = 403.7927445130133423714348056539 m/s
40Ar: √ 287.64 K * 3 * 1.380649e−23 J·K−1 / 6.63590925530233e-26 kg = 423.7177812540082999576147403721 m/s
KE = 1/2 m v^2
CO2: 1/2 * 7.306961098775001e-26 kg * 403.7927445130133423714348056539 m/s * 403.7927445130133423714348056539 m/s = 5.9569481753999999999999999999999e-21 J
40Ar: 1/2 * 6.63590925530233e-26 kg * 423.7177812540082999576147403721 m/s * 423.7177812540082999576147403721 m/s = 5.9569481753999999999999999999999e-21 J
––––––––––––––––––
Momentum:
p = m v
40Ar: p = 6.63590925530233e-26 kg * 423.7177812540082999576147403721 m/s = 2.8117527462596417803420760926858e-23 kg m sec-1
CO2: p = 7.306961098775001e-26 kg * 403.7927445130133423714348056539 m/s = 2.9504978761241812282533590447074e-23 kg m sec-1
There’s what’s different. Not kinetic energy, momentum. LOL
Bait them… ask them if they deny the Equipartition Theorem. They must, if they claim that lighter isotopes have higher kinetic energy than heavier isotopes at exactly the same kinetic temperature. LOL
It’s all about the energy density gradient, as I outlined above. Every single real-world process is predicated upon the energy density gradient.
Agreed. My Bad. I believe the concept I was searching for is Kinetic Temperature? or perhaps Molecular Velocity?
OK Momentum fits.
More nonsense (at least to me) from Professor CO2 as I’m calling him.
“The atmospheric CO₂ increase would be twice as fast if it was from anthropogenic CO₂ emissions alone. Land and ocean are carbon sinks, reducing the atmospheric CO₂ increase induced by fossil fuel emissions by about 50%. That’s called the airborne fraction.
Hard to believe that in 2022 anyone could still argue that the atmospheric CO₂ increase is NOT due to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions ! We have so many independent lines of evidences (CO₂, 13C, O2/N2, ocean C inventory, etc…).”
So I explained, “It is not the only means of possible increases. Hard to believe one can isolate such things for a narrative or a political agenda. Of course CO2 is increasing because of fossil fuels, but that is not the only possible sources is it? Just the most desired source.”
Where he stated, “No political agenda for us. Just plain science.”
😂🤡🤣
“The atmospheric CO₂ increase would be twice as fast if it was from anthropogenic CO₂ emissions alone. Land and ocean are carbon sinks, reducing the atmospheric CO₂ increase induced by fossil fuel emissions by about 50%. That’s called the airborne fraction.” so says Prof. Pierre Friedlingstein, “one of the very top scientists working on this topic.”
Yeah, there are several ‘temperatures’… the one people generally use is the mean of the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules comprising an object or occupying a volume. Otherwise known as static temperature, it traces a Planckian curve of particle velocities.
Kinetic temperature is the temperature of individual atoms or molecules. It can be calculated even in the event that the atom or molecule is not moving in all 3 DOF, in which case its dynamic temperature would be higher in that DOF than its static temperature. That’s what Bernoulli’s Principle is all about… accelerate a compressible fluid in one DOF and it trades off a lower dynamic temperature in the other two DOF for a higher dynamic temperature (otherwise known as stagnation temperature) in the DOF in which the fluid is moving.
That’s how I think the hydrosonic pumps work… if you flash water to saturated steam, then accelerate that steam, its dynamic temperature in one DOF increases while its temperature in the other two DOF would drop… if it drops below ambient temperature in those two DOF, the steam can absorb energy from the ambient. Once the steam leaves the impeller, random collisions would ‘repack’ that energy into all 3 DOF, giving you steam that is hotter than when it went into the pump, and hotter than the energy imparted to the water by the pump would imply, because it’s absorbed energy from the ambient.
The same process can be exhibited in a Ranque Wirbelrohr (vortex tube)… enthalpy conservation in a moving frame of reference. I suggested that a Wirbelrohr be added to my previous employer’s chillers as a means of increasing efficiency, with the hot exhaust used to warm returning hot loop water, and the cool exhaust used to cool the returning cold loop water… they couldn’t figure out how it worked, so they didn’t implement it. We could have completely shut down the boilers on warm days using either the hydrosonic pumps or the Wirbelrohr, saving tons of money on natgas. We spent over $1 million per month, I stood to make 10% on the savings over 5 years. Pointy-haired bosses aren’t smart enough to understand such things, alas.
I literally had a pointy-haired boss tell me that he didn’t want any more noise in Central Plant, and the Wirbelrohr sounded like something that would roar. Rohr is German for “pipe”. They promote them above their competency. LOL
SO basically, lighter isotopes will (increase in probability) to be released from oceans due to something like escape velocity?
momentum equation: momentum=mass and velocity
p=m v
Elastic collision is a momentum-transfer process.
The heavier isotopes, upon collision with lighter isotopes, will impart momentum to the lighter isotopes, giving them a higher velocity than they would have had they collided with another lighter isotope. That’s just enough of a ‘kick’ to release the lighter isotopes preferentially over the heavier isotopes.
They both have the same kinetic energy at the same kinetic temperature, but the heavier isotopes carry more momentum, which, when transferred to the lighter isotopes via collision, knocks them free at a higher rate than for the heavier isotopes.
An empirical example:
Take a basketball and a golf ball. Place the golf ball directly above and touching the basketball, and hold them about 4 feet above the ground. Now release both of them at the same time. When the basketball hits the ground and rebounds, the golf ball will receive such a huge ‘kick’ that it’ll go flying far overhead. Do it outside unless you want a dramatic demonstration of a golf ball denting or penetrating your ceiling. LOL
I used to win bets doing that. I’d take the golf ball, hold it arm’s length, drop it without pushing it, then demonstrate that it couldn’t bounce higher than from where it was released. I even let others try to simply drop it and get it to bounce higher than where they’d released it… of course, no one could. Then I’d bet gullible rubes that I could get it to bounce higher, then I’d do the above. LOL
That makes perfect sense.
So lighter isotopes would be released more often, and plants prefer those lighter isotopes more often. That would suggest the Suess effect is missing a few factors? The C14 declining from reduced nuclear testing does make sense. The other factors of cosmic rays and proton events creating more C14 makes me suspicious of the results they are claiming. I guess the question is which produces more? We are nearing the maximum of this solar cycle I believe.
Great input guys, highly appreciate you guys breaking it down for us non academics to follow so easily.
The seas surface would have to be heated to a high enough temperature to create enough kinetic energy so I’m guessing it would be more prominent at the tropics.
How did you figure out the momentum per second speed? That’s some deep maths right there.
Here’s all the equations, classically and taking into account Relativity:
KE = (DOF / 2) k_B T = 1/2 m (v · v) = (1/2 m v²)_x + (1/2 m v²)_y + (1/2 m v²)_z = m c² [(1/√(1 – v²/c²)) – 1]
v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m) = √(-((-4 DOF k_B T c^4) – (DOF² k_B² T² c²)) / ((DOF² k_B² T²) + (4 m² c^4) + (4 DOF k_b m T c²)))
T = (2 KE) / (DOF k_B) = (m v²) / (DOF k_B) = (((2 m c³ √(c² – v²)) – (2 mc² (c² – v²))) / (DOF k_B (c² – v²)))
Where: KE = kinetic energy (J); DOF = Degrees Of Freedom; k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); m = mass (kg); v = velocity (m/s); c = speed of light (299792458 m/s); T = absolute temperature (K)
While energy (specifically, kinetic energy) is deemed to be a scalar, that’s only because it’s traditionally viewed as being equipartitioned into all 3 DOF. Translational mode DOF are independent and thus can be used to partition kinetic energy into vectors. That’s kind of how Bernoulli’s Principle works.
Geometrically, the dot product of two vectors is the magnitude of one times the projection of the second onto the first. Since the projection of a vector onto itself leaves its direction unchanged, the dot product of any vector with itself is the square of that vector’s magnitude. The result can still be treated as a vector quantity because direction remains unchanged.
A · A = ||A|| * ||A|| * cosθ = ||A||²
cos(0) = 1, therefore the direction is unchanged, only the magnitude is squared.
Remember, if a tensor quantity has a magnitude and one vector field (i.e., rank 1 tensor), then it is called a vector quantity.
Kinetic energy is only considered a rank 0 tensor (a scalar quantity) when it has no vector field… in other words, when the kinetic energy is equipartitioned into all 3 translational mode DOF, thus the component vectors cancel, thus there is no net vector.
But if kinetic energy is partitioned into fewer than all 3 translational mode DOF, it has a vector field and thus is a rank 1 tensor (a vector quantity), by definition.
Yes, kinetic energy can still be described by only its magnitude even if it has a vector (ie: a net direction)… but the fact that it has a vector means it is a rank 1 tensor (a vector quantity) by definition, whether or not you actually use the vector quantity component of that rank 1 tensor in your calculations.
That’s why a high-velocity gas flow in a pipe (for instance: downstream of a pressure-relief valve) will have a much higher stagnation temperature than static temperature, which is why pressure-relief piping must be designed to handle extreme temperatures. If you’ve ever heard a 4500 psi air system relief lift, you know it can be violent. If you’ve ever touched the piping, you know it can get hot, especially at any elbows.
Dynamic pressure is a vector quantity. Another name for dynamic pressure is ‘velocity pressure’. Velocity is a vector quantity.
Dynamic pressure can be defined as the kinetic energy per unit volume of a fluid. Volume is a scalar quantity, so to arrive at a vector quantity for dynamic pressure, that means in such a case, kinetic energy must be treated as a vector quantity because it’s not equipartitioned in all 3 DOF.
A pressure field is a two-component vector force field, which describes in a covariant way the dynamic pressure of individual particles and the pressure emerging in systems with a number of closely interacting particles.
Just as static pressure is intricately associated with static temperature, dynamic pressure is intricately associated with dynamic (stagnation) temperature.
In mathematics, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a linear mapping from one set of algebraic objects to another. Objects that tensors may map between include, but are not limited to, vectors and scalars.
If a tensor has a magnitude and no vector field (i.e., rank 0 tensor), then it is called a scalar and has 1 component in 3-D space and in 4-D space-time.
If a tensor has a magnitude and one vector field (i.e., rank 1 tensor), then it is called a vector and has 3 components in 3-D space and 4 components in 4-D space-time.
If a tensor has a magnitude and two vector fields (i.e., rank 2 tensor), then it is called a dyad and has 9 components in 3-D space and 16 components in 4-D space-time.
If a tensor has a magnitude and three vector fields (i.e.: rank 3 tensor), then it is called a triad and has 27 components in 3-D space and 64 components in 4-D space-time.
If a tensor has a magnitude and four vector fields (ie: rank 4 tensor), then it is called a tetrad and has 81 components in 3-D space and 256 components in 4-D space-time.
In other words, a vector is a degenerate kind of tensor. Likewise, a scalar is a degenerate kind of tensor.
So if the tensor quantity of kinetic energy is not equipartitioned in all 3 translational mode DOF, that makes it a tensor of rank 1… a vector.
“But I read a website which says that dynamic pressure is a scalar because it’s invariant under transformations such as rotation!“, you may say.
Yeah, no. Kinetic energy is not invariant under all transformations, acceleration being one of them… and dynamic pressure most assuredly entails acceleration. That’s why the kinetic energy isn’t equipartitioned into all 3 DOF. It’s been accelerated in one DOF.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Think for yourself. Need I state which kook this is directed to? LOL
CDM
That is the concept I was struggling with. I am trying to link the known property of fluids: Evaporation causes cooling, with the observed effect that escape velocity determines the molecular constitution of an atmosphere (e.g. loss of light fraction helium gas to space).
The first (evaporation causes cooling) is explained as being due to a Gaussian distribution of molecular velocity such that some high velocity molecules escape from the liquid surface thereby reducing the liquid population’s velocity distribution – Net effect liquid cooling.
The second effect (loss of light molecules to space) is again a velocity effect associated with the fact that for a given temperature in a mixture of gases the light fraction molecules e.g. Helium will have a higher molecular velocity and therefore be more likely to exceed planetary escape velocity.
The elements in play here are velocity mass and gravity.
Toaster ovens, spawn of Satan.
My wife put something in the toaster oven and forgot about it, and despite my telling her repeatedly not to crank it up “to warm it up quicker” (which it doesn’t) and despite my telling her repeatedly not to walk away from the toaster oven when it’s in use (which is exactly what she did), and despite my telling her that she had to keep the inside spotless or it’d start a fire (she never did), and despite my telling her that not using the timer function was a dumb idea (she never uses the timer, she cranks it to “always on”, which shouldn’t even exist on these ovens-from-the-depths-of-Hell).
A small fire resulted. My kid caught it, called me, my wife freaked out, grabbed a bag of flour and attempted to throw a handful of flour on the fire, only stopped at the last moment by my physically stopping her from doing so… apparently she’s never heard that wheat flour, dustified, is explosive. Being a farm boy and having witnessed my fair share of grain elevator explosions, I knew if she’d been able to toss that flour, we’d be living elsewhere right now.
Anyway, I have a spray bottle that I used to spray cleaning solution onto the HVAC condenser to clean the fins. It was cleaned out after the last time I used it, so I filled it with water, quickly opened the toaster oven door, misted some water in, it flared up, I slammed the toaster oven door, the fire damped down, burning just a bit less than before, rinse and repeat several times as I slowly coated the bottom surface and the rack with water, the steam slowly choking off the fire’s oxygen and the water removing heat.
Yeah, water’s not the best solution for a fire partially fueled by oil or grease buildup unless you know what you’re doing. I worked with what I had. This isn’t my first time fighting fires. I fought one on the submarine that I never thought was going to go out, no matter how much water I poured on it… oil-soaked Kim-Wipes stored in a not-easily-accessible place, catching an oil leak off the main reduction gears that didn’t get noticed until the Kim-Wipes spontaneously combusted, the water rolled right off large portions of the Kim-Wipes due to the oil. Kept re-flashing until I’d soaked everything so much it was just an ashy, papery, liquidy mass. Lots of fun cleaning that up, let me tell you.
After the toaster oven fire was out, one of the kids thought it’d be fun to get a picture of the inside of the toaster oven, and despite my telling everyone to just let it sit and cool for a bit, they opened it up, and it reflashed, necessitating me re-applying water mist to take out one leg of the fire triangle (heat), since I couldn’t get rid of the other two (fuel, oxygen) sufficiently to keep it from smoldering and reflashing. Toaster oven doors don’t seal, so oxygen could still get in around the edges.
Then, again, despite my telling them to just let the damn thing sit and cool for awhile, my wife picked it up by the cord and threw it in the trash container outside, melting a hole in the side of it and necessitating that I watch to be sure she didn’t ignite the trash container, too.
I swear, some people panic over such little things. LOL
Now I get to educate them about fire-fighting techniques, the fire triangle, fire safety, what does and does not burn (and/or explode) when thrown on a fire, etc. And I get to go buy a fire extinguisher. I’m going to mount it right next to the new toaster oven, just to tweak my wife a bit. LOL
And I’m going to take apart the new toaster oven and put a peg under the temperature control knob so it can only go to 200 F, and remove the electrical connection to the “always-on” timer functionality.
Fun.
CDM.
The key to all of this is the process of fractionation. The evaporation of a liquid is clearly a process of fractionation based on molecular velocity. Similarly the escape velocity of a gas is also a process that leads to planetary atmosphere molecular fractionation with the loss of light molecules to space. With these two points in mind gas molecules with different isotopic composition, and therefore different mass, will fractionate under the process of vertical motion in a gravity field.
@Philip
That is a brief and concise summary. A good introduction to a paper on the subject which of course the IPCC trolls would shoot down but that just means it is hitting home.
@T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™
We have experienced the same PhD apparently. This is like Déjà vu.
“One self-proclaimed Ph.D in physics tried to disprove my Planck Radiation Law-based disproof of CO2 global warming by asking me what would happen if a light bulb were completely surrounded by perfect mirrors, evidently believing that it would heat the light bulb with its own heat in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are no such things as perfect mirrors that work at all wavelengths and all angles, but even if there were, they would just keep the Planck radiation from the light bulb bouncing around and accumulating until it became super-bright, but sorry, since the photons are the same temperature as the filament, they can’t raise its temperature. A perfect mirror-encased light bulb could end up up with the brightest light in the world, but ironically nobody would know it, sounds like a Buddhist koan like the sound of one hand clapping. Actually, they’ve long done something like this with ruby rod lasers, encasing them in flash bulbs encased in mirrors so that the flash energy bounces back and forth through the rod, which absorbs it into certain quantum levels until an energy inversion is created, after which a trigger pulse is sent causing it to all dump out from the higher energy levels to the ground level in the same instant, creating intense collimated laser light.”
Someone had a question,
“Why don’t they make SWIR lasers ~0.8 µm super high frequency compared to ~10.4 µm?”
When my toaster caught on fire it was Winter so yeah, I grabbed oven mits and tossed it outside in the snow. Neighbors weren’t happy but the house survived. Stank like crazy and made neat steam and smoke.
CD Marshall wrote:
“Someone had a question,
“Why don’t they make SWIR lasers ~0.8 µm super high frequency compared to ~10.4 µm?””
They do make lasers in that range and even shorter wavelength. HeNe lasers range from ~100μm to ~0.54μm, with most at 0.623816μm.
The problem is that the gain (and thus the output efficiency) is lower at shorter wavelengths… the cavity and mirrors are lossy at shorter wavelengths, necessitating that the light undergo more beam passes before exiting the output coupler.
Of course, a laser is yet another example of an effectively closed cavity (in the case of a HeNe laser, the output coupler only has ~0.01 transmissivity and ~0.99 reflectivity due to the low gain) which absolutely does not have a blackbody spectrum… because the quality of a cavity depends very heavily upon the material (and thus the reflectivity) of the walls, as I outline above in my disproof of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation.
Imagine if the US was dead center in the tropics. Yikes!
Overlap that with US droughts and cloud cover makes an interesting pattern. The drought patterns are well known and recorded yet somehow NOW are the cause of global warming. 😂
https://www.drought.gov/data-maps-tools/us-drought-monitor
The droughts on the West Coast are caused by PDO. We are in a positive (cool) PDO which causes cooler air and dry spells.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/
boomie789
Didn’t realize the British Isles were so bleak in sunshine and Iceland is far worse. Odd the contrasts between Norway and Sweden. I talked to a girl from Oslo and she said the Midnight Sun is further north. The biggest reason why I wanted to live in Alaska.
Missed something.
Positive PDO
Negative PDO
This was hard for someone to find, anyway, to copy it?
https://i1.wp.com/bolenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/alinsky3.jpg?w=600&ssl=1
https://bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/
What is REALLY interesting is that Saul Alinsky died in 1972, almost 50 years ago…
So, these political tactics are, at a minimum, fifty years old. They were designed to deal with a political situation in existence during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s – a world totally different from today. Yet, many activist groups laud these tactics without realizing their in-appropriateness in the 2020 world.
What Alinsky, and his followers, failed to comprehend is that they created a whole generation of people who cannot see beyond screaming criticism and offer any modern day solutions to social problems beyond a social shift to the hungry and dreary world of socialism/communism – something they definitely do not actually want to happen.
The counter reaction to this situation has been the rise of the humongous populist movement that elected Donald Trump. This group doesn’t put up with Alinsky-like nonsense. They outnumber the Alinski-ites 100,000 to 1.
Tim Bolen
This is one neurotic person who has not learned what a paragraph is. Most of it makes no logical sense.
“The first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but changes from one form to another. When a blue, green, yellow, orange, or red photon is absorbed by a mass, that photon has more kinetic energy than the infrared it releases, therefore, there must be more infrared photons released than the original photon received. The net result is heat or energy transfer in the form of conduction, convection, and/or radiation. Therefore, temperature increases due to white light absorption. All matter radiates energy in the form of infrared photons by frequency according to its temperature, which is absorbed by surrounding matter. If there is no surrounding matter, then the matter will release its energy by radiation of infrared photons according to the matter’s temperature. That energy radiation can radiate in any direction. If it gets through the atmosphere without hitting a greenhouse gas molecule, then it will travel in a straight line through outer space until acted on by gravity. That is entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. If on the other hand, that infrared photon strikes a greenhouse gas molecule, it will be absorbed and then radiated in any direction. Like a pin in a pinball machine, while that greenhouse gas is in the excited state from absorbing an infrared photon, and that greenhouse gas molecule encounters another molecule, energy transfer will occur due to the differential in kinetic energy, increasing that other molecule’s motion by conduction. That is when work is performed. When the infrared photon is released, it will be at a lower frequency than the original infrared photon, therefore, observing the first law of thermodynamics. That is how greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere. Your idea that CO2 is losing its ability to heat the planet is wrong. The more pins in that pinball machine, the longer it takes for that ball to escape.”
@CD – world salad…another freak account…
I love this song every climate scientist should learn this by heart “That’s entropy, man” hilarious.
I mean…this is all we should share whenever we have these retards show up…or when we meet them online.
Seriously…save that…bookmark it…permanent reference.
They think some work wrangle gives the greenhouse theory legitimacy. It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not makes sense, as long as the cult is reassured and feels it is on the right side of science.
CD Marshall wrote:
Love that. Of course, there are many on the supposedly CAGW-skeptical side who need reminded of the basics, too… especially that ‘heat is work and work is heat‘; that ‘if there is no free energy, no work can be done, so no energy can flow‘; and that ‘energy is energy no matter the form, it all obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behavior‘.
They’ve somehow bought into some of the twaddle the climastrologists are pushing… or they’re Judas goats attempting to lead the CAGW-skeptical astray.
I would say that that’s a word description trying to make the point that heat isn’t due to bulk action. Heat is action on the microscopic/atomic/molecular scale.
dU = Q + W
They’re the same thing, mathematically. But they’re different at the scale and mechanism they occur at.
They’re both what make temperature increase. But how they do that is different.
This guy is a class A ass clown. 😂🤡🤪🥳 Yes at this point I’m just mocking him because he keeps spouting senseless rhetoric. A bit more to it but this was the meat of the pie.
Clown:
If it wasn’t for the secondary greenhouse gases, CH4, CO2, O3, and N2O, the Earth would be an ice ball with temperatures lower than 0F and an albedo at .9. The sun is too far away to raise temperatures high enough to allow liquid water alone.
ME: “When putting on a coat a mile over my head or more keeps me warm let me know. Seriously, a 1st grader should know that a coat restricts convection of the body which helps to maintain more of the original body T closer to the body. That is actual thermodynamics. Some heat is always lost to work. Always. Always. Always.”
Clown:
Exactly how do you think the greenhouse effect works? Both the Moon and the Earth are the same distance from the sun but there’s a 33F mean temperature differential between them. You are trying to challenge the greenhouse effect even the denialists agree with? The only difference between us SOPs and the denialists is the disagreement in sensitivity.
ME:
“Seriously, a 1st grader should know that a coat restricts convection of the body which helps to maintain more of the original body T closer to the body.”
Clown:
Most 1st graders don’t know what convection is. You’ve never explained your theory. A complete explanation of your theory might be interesting. 1000frolly tried it. Of course, he had balls, not just denial. It took my Dad and two other engineers several months to show him his ideas didn’t fit all circumstances.
ME:
“Energy and heat, understanding the difference will make your comments less embarrassing for us both.”
Clown
You are talking to an engineer. Heat is the energy that is transferred between two bodies, always hot to cold. That would be the second law of thermodynamics. Energy is the ability of a body to do work. Energy has a direct relationship to temperature.
ME:
“SWR heats the planet, not LWR.”
Clown:
Using bullshit abbreviations? SOP: standard operating procedure The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons.
They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space.
That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth, absorbed, and then reradiated in the Earth’s black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out.
As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling down the planet’s surface. In addition, some incoming infrared light is converted into kinetic energy raising the atmospheric temperature by the greenhouse gases before reaching the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, as we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.
ME:
“Want proof, toss some ice cubes on the ground outside and see how much those photons at 10.7µ warm the surface.”
Clown:
I’ve watched snow vanish without melting all my life.
ME:
“HINT: CO2 intercepts at the peak 15µ range, a lower frequency than the peak IR emissions of an ice cube. ΔU=Q-W”
Clown:
Carbon dioxide absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers, a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions.
Nepal wrote:
“Heat is not work”
Heat is definitionally an energy flux. Free energy is defined as the ability to perform work… no free energy, no work can be done, no energy can flow, no heat. Thus heat is work… if not right away, it soon will be, as soon as it incides upon something.
This is what I was talking about in my last post. I believe you’re a Judas goat, ‘evenminded’ in yet another sock, attempting to twist scientific reality to fit your kooky “CAGW is caused by continual 2LoT violations” drivel.
Nepal wrote:
“It’s just the scale that’s different — lift a block enough to raise its energy by 1J (work) and you haven’t put in any new entropy. So you can extract that 1 J however you please: turn it into 1 J electricity, heat up an object that’s already really hot by 1 J, whatever.
But heat the block up by 1 J, and that energy is spread out over 10^23 atoms. That’s a whole different scale. You’ve added entropy.”
‘Evenminded’ also has problems in properly delineating a system. In the first case, you’ve delineated the system as only the block, excluding the rest of the system… that mechanism which raises the block.
ALL real-world processes are irreversible and thus add entropy. Reversible processes are idealizations, they don’t actually exist.
CD Marshall’s Arse-Clown wrote:
“As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling down the planet’s surface. In addition, some incoming infrared light is converted into kinetic energy raising the atmospheric temperature by the greenhouse gases before reaching the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, as we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.”
That’s a new twist on an old theme. Never seen that one before.
Now hit him with the mean free path length / air density / altitude relation… as altitude increases, air density decreases, and thus photon mean free path length decreases exponentially.
Thus the atmosphere essentially ‘pumps’ IR photons upward.
Think about it… say a CO2 molecule absorbs one of those upwelling photons from the surface. That molecule would have to be within ~10.4 m of the surface, that’s the extinction depth at 420 ppm CO2.
Now, let’s say it emits upwelling. Now, air density is just a bit lower, mean free path length is a bit longer than ~10.4 m.
Now, let’s say another CO2 molecule absorbs that photon, and emits upwelling. Again, air density is just a bit lower, mean free path length is a bit longer than the previous, which was a bit longer than ~10.4 m.
Now do that a few hundred million times. Each time the photon is emitted upwelling, its mean free path length increases, each time it’s emitted downwelling, its mean free path length decreases.
What are the odds of that photon reaching the surface again? Practically zero.
Why? Because the odds of any given 14.98352 µm photon hitting a CO2 molecule is 0.042%, and the photon can travel 299792458 meters in a single second. If it misses any CO2 molecules or any other absorbers, it’s far gone from Earth in a single second. It passes the Karman line in only 0.33356409519815204957557671447492 milliseconds.
Nearly all of the photons the climate loons claim cause CAGW must come from that ultra-thin layer of atmosphere within ~10.4 m of the surface, with 50% of that coming from that ultra-ultra-thin layer of atmosphere within ~1 m of the surface. Why? Because 50% of the radiation absorbed over the extinction depth is absorbed in the first ~1m, then 50% of the remaining is absorbed in the next ~1m, then 50% of that is absorbed in the next ~1 m, so on and so forth.
Mheh…
“Now hit him with the mean free path length / air density / altitude relation… as altitude increases, air density decreases, and thus photon mean free path length decreases exponentially.”
should be –
“Now hit him with the mean free path length / air density / altitude relation… as altitude increases, air density decreases, and thus photon mean free path length increases exponentially.”
I’m certain some enterprising young genius can calculate exactly at what photon flux near-surface CO2 absorption of 14.98352 µm photons becomes saturated.
Remember, if all CO2 molecules are already in excited vibrational mode quantum states…
{v20(0)} -> {v21(1)} 667.4 cm-1 (14.98352 µm)
{v21(1)} -> {v22(2)} 667.8 cm-1 (14.97454 µm)
{v22(2)} -> {v23(3)} 668.1 cm-1 (14.96782 µm)
…then there are no CO2 molecules available to absorb any more radiation. That radiation passes excited molecules right by, unless there are degenerate vibrational mode quantum states available to be excited.
And as I said, if that radiation passes the CO2 by, it can be at the Karman line in a third of a millisecond.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Heat is definitionally an energy flux. Free energy is defined as the ability to perform work… no free energy, no work can be done, no energy can flow, no heat. Thus heat is work… if not right away, it soon will be, as soon as it incides upon something.”
Do remember that photons are considered the force carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction, and work is defined as? That’s right, as the product of force and displacement, or in thermodynamics as energy transferred (the definition of ‘heat’) by a system to its surroundings or vice versa.
See how physics seems to hang together once you get your definitions right? Rather than a mish-mash of incorrectitudes slathered with fantasy ideations and topped with fictive drivel pulled from one’s coal-chute, it’s coherent. It makes sense. One can only deny scientific reality if one is quite insane, driven to that insanity by a political cum environmental ideology which is predicated upon driving its adherents insane, convincing them to believe absurdities in the hopes that they can then be induced to later commit atrocities.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
“Remember, if all CO2 molecules are already in excited vibrational mode quantum states…
{v20(0)} -> {v21(1)} 667.4 cm-1 (14.98352 µm)
{v21(1)} -> {v22(2)} 667.8 cm-1 (14.97454 µm)
{v22(2)} -> {v23(3)} 668.1 cm-1 (14.96782 µm)
…then there are no CO2 molecules available to absorb any more radiation. That radiation passes excited molecules right by, unless there are degenerate vibrational mode quantum states available to be excited.”
So essentially, as more CO2 becomes (and remains so more often) vibrationally excited due to a higher photon flux, that is functionally equivalent to reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Fewer CO2 molecules able to absorb radiation because they’re already vibrationally excited, more 14.98352 µm photons able to reach space before being absorbed.
And again, I’m certain some enterprising young genius can do the calculations to quantify that effect, right? LOL
Because doing those calculations shows CAGW to be physically impossible. It is yet another negative feedback, self-stabilizing… which is why the planet’s never gone into runaway warming in the past due to CO2, and why it never will.
A new English word for me.
Either incide archaic : cut, incise (a possible fit).
Or, from Spanish incides to have a bearing on (this is a much better context)
Are you Spanish?
No, that’s the scientific term for when a photon interacts with (but is not necessarily absorbed by) an object. The photon can be absorbed, reflected or transmitted (although I prefer the term ‘transited’, since ‘transmitted’ makes it appear as though the object is doing something to (ie: ‘transmitting’) the photon… in reality, the only interaction for a non-resonant photon which is not absorbed or reflected would be a change of bound electron phase, and a change in photon phase, which changes the photon vector… it can range anywhere from no interaction to scattering to reflection). If bound electron and photon phase change does occur, no energy is absorbed by the object from the photon.
One can use the term ‘incides upon’ or ‘is incident upon’.
Gaslighting
“A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity. The classic example of gaslighting is to switch something around on someone that you know they’re sure to notice, but then deny knowing anything about it, and to explain that they “must be imagining things” when they challenge these changes.”
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gaslighting
The problem with a “one world government” is that there’s nowhere for people to run should that government turn totalitarian and begin culling people, which it invariably will, especially so since there’s no other government to hold it accountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In the past, governments which did that typically got a war with other countries, their leader shot in the head and burned in a ditch with gasoline.
In the future, people will be forced to toughen up and employ lone-wolf asymmetric warfare against the totalitarians, because they won’t have any other choice. It’s either that, or starve, or be killed by jackbooted thugs employed by the politicians.
So the “one world government” will fall as they abuse people and the politicians get culled. The only hope of the politicians to even survive is to wall themselves off in high-security fortresses… and those can be sieged. No matter what, they’ll die. All of them. You can’t piss off the entire world and expect to get away with it.
And when that “one world government” falls, the world falls into another dark age, with warlords grabbing regional power, regional wars breaking out as they attempt to annex neighboring warlord regions.
Scientific knowledge will be lost, infrastructure will decay and / or be destroyed, lifespans will plummet, now-rare diseases will again become common.
Weak men create hard times. Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men.
Our only hope of averting the impending disaster is for strong men to step up now and do what must be done. And they’re beginning to. In the next couple years, you’ll see many of the so-called ‘elite’ culled.
“Do remember that photons are considered the force carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction”
And that’s why I’ve said, for a long time, that there is no difference between radiative heat transfer and the other modes of heat transfer, because they’re all electromagnetic interactions, doing the exact same thing with the exact same force interactions. The retards try to make a special exemption of the Laws of Thermodynamics for radiation…but it it is ALL EM force interactions at work, doing the exact same thing, following the exact same physics underneath.
Haha…the goat description was funny…lol
Kooks, does that describe you!!??
So you admit, then, that “a regular goat, with horns, a voracious appetite, horizontal slit-like pupils, and narrow hooves adapted for leaping from ledge to ledge” (your words) has a far greater depth and breadth of scientific knowledge, a much firmer grasp upon sanity and a better sense of humor than you. LOL
Which would lead people reading your fantasy ideation twaddle (which would result in the rampant violation of the fundamental physical laws) to stop and wonder… do we believe this coming from a Nepal. Even the GOAT gets it right, Nepal is incapable of doing so.? LOL
I am a GOAT – God Of All Things. LOL
Joseph E Postma wrote:
“And that’s why I’ve said, for a long time, that there is no difference between radiative heat transfer and the other modes of heat transfer, because they’re all electromagnetic interactions, doing the exact same thing with the exact same force interactions. The retards try to make a special exemption of the Laws of Thermodynamics for radiation”
I hear what you’re saying. I agree, which is why I wrote:
“Energy is energy, no matter the form. It obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behaviors regardless.”
Nepal wrote:
“2) the energy is in the form of heat, not work/electricity.”
Whoopsie. LOL
Awww, I guess Nepal didn’t know that energy is energy, no matter the form, that it obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behaviors regardless. That’s why he tried to make a special exemption of the Laws of Thermodynamics for radiation.
Perhaps he’s not aware that thermodynamics, electrical theory, pressure and temperature, etc…. all the equations are just variations on the same theme.
I’ve already demonstrated that fact with my analogization of thermodynamics with electrical theory… can Nepal figure it out for the other forms of energy, or will I have to hold his hand and baby-step him through elementary knowledge yet again? LOL
Thanks. My education continues.
@ Philip Mulholland
As does mine.
“My education continues”
That is.
Interesting.
So ghgs can increase the minimum surface temperature in some cases, usually latent heat from water vapor which clearly is not the greenhouse effect proper, it does not increase surface maximum temperature for DWLWR simply does not possess the power it needs to do so.
BUT you can if you are a climate clown; claim ghgs are increasing surface T (really average). For wouldn’t the average T increase (technically) even though the maximum does not. So they can claim ghgs are increasing average surface T. They aren’t “lying” they are just not being openly correct. It can in specific situations do just that, it cannot in any situation increase the global average temperature whatever that is actually suppose to mean. Sounds like pretty muddy waters.
That’s why they use averages and statistic, easily manipulated.
That’s a good statement I’m using that in quotes for that clown nut job, unless you want to polish it up some?
By the way Dr. Holmes said he has know idea who this clown is, I asked him on Twitter.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
A molecular chemist sent me an, “Energy Level Correlation Diagram for CO2”
Not sure if this will send it or not.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Mp7Ms-hM76boc3omfl626Wy8-PRXRTIuzBkOZjwyRia2K4mC3JSemzdpxTQ0pTpE90M1sYQ=s85
That didn’t work. The old-fashioned way then I guess.
It’s the second link down.
Some things he says is pretty accurate other things he says leaves me scratching my head. Whereas other guys who are “physics trained” know exactly what I mean when I explain Joe’s or your comments and agree with them.
Should I send him that link I’m curious what he says about it if he’s not a bot anyway.
Joe,
What’s causing Mars and Pluto to warm? Impossible to find anything on it anywhere that isn’t propaganda.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/08/exclusive-state-department-prepares-to-announce-worldwide-racial-equity-chief-leaked-email-shows/
“The position of Special Representative was first announced by the State Department in its April Equity Action Plan. The position’s holder has not been named, but the Special Representative will have wide-reaching powers, since he or she will be responsible for “institutionaliz[ing] an enterprise-wide approach to integrating racial and ethnic equity.” The email names “advancing equity, addressing systemic racism, and strengthening democracy worldwide” as “national security imperatives and core tenets of President Biden’s foreign policy.””
“Although the Special Representative will be responsible for “promoting systems of inclusion that mitigate bias, discrimination, and violence” and “fostering more inclusive societies,” previous U.S. government efforts to promote inclusion and equity have failed. The federal government spent nearly $800 million promoting gender equality in Afghanistan, a project that failed due to “traditional gender norms,” according to the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.”
“The Special Representative will also be placed in charge of “countering disinformation and societal violence aimed at… marginalized racial and ethnic communities,” the email reveals. Currently, efforts to combat disinformation are housed in the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, and are primarily aimed at Russia.”
@boomie – all this is about is dumbing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. No more high-IQ, high trust, high conscientiousness European White societies…we all have to be 3rd world banana republic failed states now.
White people will have to go more Fascist then they ever have before to survive.
Very good watch. If you haven’t seen already.
https://odysee.com/@Boomie:a/IMG_1254:9
“Fox News just ran a whole segment endorsing trans surgery for children”
Together in our diversity.
Division is unity.
War is peace.
Up is down.
https://archive.org/details/george-lincoln-rockwell-on-conservatives-at-brown-university
This fn cannot go on.
Joe also disagrees with how KL is presented. KL only applies to thermal equilibrium and a closed system. Should never have been used for terrestrial equations unless you are referring to the earth’s core, in my humble opinion. The climate clowns use it to push the greenhouse gas effect narrative.
In some rare occasions, for a mathematical trick you could apply it to a parcel of air if it can be treated as a closed system in LTE like a large cumulonimbus cloud even in that case it is supposed to be composed of the same point masses.
Oh yes the phrasing of KL provides for a rich fertile soil of bullshittery and sophistry for the potential suspected mass serial rapists and cannibals like Robitaille and Crothers to find a living in. I’m so fn sick of it and seeing people debate it, it’s retarded.
Energy in equals energy out. Done.
This scheme of keeping energy out equal to energy in, but increasing the temperature of the out body, reduces to HIDING temperature.
The temperature of Earth increases, but it’s hidden from the universe.
You can only hide a temperature increase by decreasing emissivity.
But CO2 is said to emit, whereas O2 and N2 already don’t emit.
Energy in equals energy out. Done.
Q in does not equal Q out.
That’s where the climate clowns go wild with this TOA solar forcing tripe as if energy is somehow “trapped” on the Earth and the adiabatic process doesn’t exist. Which is why they have to so very desperately try and link the ghge to the lapse rate.
How am I not following you anymore? I just had to re-follow you.
Joe,
What are you up to these days? Haven’t heard from you much on here are you doing okay under the circumstances of living under an insane government which my country in the USA is soon following?
Not much to report.
This was good…wait for the part with the university proff…it really is like that now, even in STEM:
https://rumble.com/v17ee9x-what-is-a-woman.html
So now I am talking to the son of “class A ass clown”.
Me:
“But he doesn’t know exactly how the climate works or physics or thermodynamics or chemistry as it applies to the atmosphere.” {I was referring to his pops}.
Son of clown.
Dad follows the classic greenhouse gas theory that’s been around for 170 years. Both the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia give a detailed explanation of the greenhouse gas theory. There’s nothing to challenge it. In physics, it all works mathematically, or it doesn’t. You have no theory. You have no postulate. You cannot put your ideas together in a concise workable theory that makes any sense. What you have is little pieces of information that cannot be put together into a working system. This is what engineers do. We build systems. Do you think “I’m” wrong? Simply sit down and explain the 5 major ice ages with your ideas.”
Me:
Theory is stretch more like hypothesis and for good reasons most well known physicists never taught it like Feynman it is based on the archaic beliefs in the aether and disproved concepts in the development of thermodynamics.
The Sun supplies the energy that drives our climate which is directly linked to circulation both air and ocean. The Sun brings us in and out of glaciations mainly and more accurately how much total solar irradiance reaches the tropics’ surface/ocean. Ice Ages are linked to the orbit of our solar system around the galactic center.
And yes the “Faint Sun Paradox” doesn’t exist.
It amazes me how “consensus climate science” can ignore the full power of the Sun which has a heating potential of a 120 degrees Celsius on Earth and heats the thermosphere up to 230 degrees Celsius.
How do they do this? Very simply by conflating this concept on purpose:
Energy in equals energy out. Done.
Heat in does not equal heat out. (insert climate confusion)
No postulate hey? Lol.
Send him my spherical model diagram.
The sun heats the spherical earth and sustains the climate. How’s that for a postulate?
Because that’s literally the fucking opposite of climate change science.
Well, that’s one of those things where you basically know how to do it, and could do a lot of it with modern computer desktops…but then, when you try, you likely find it’s not so simple, and doesn’t work, and due to chaos theory (i.e. empirical measurement error theory) you can never start the model off with accurate enough initial conditions and there’s a very, very, very hard limit to that problem where errors in initial condition so quickly exponentiate that it always diverges much faster than you wanted. Still…you keep trying…which means bigger and better computers and better observations for initial conditions. Then you also realize that you actually need to solve the Stokes Equations and that’s classified and if you do it you’re dead meat. But, someone’s done enough of it to know what they’re doing and what will happen when they kick it, given the chemtrail program.
Stokes Equations?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations
“The Navier–Stokes equations are useful because they describe the physics of many phenomena of scientific and engineering interest. They may be used to model the weather, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe and air flow around a wing. The Navier–Stokes equations, in their full and simplified forms, help with the design of aircraft and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of power stations, the analysis of pollution, and many other things. Coupled with Maxwell’s equations, they can be used to model and study magnetohydrodynamics.”
Yah but they’re not actually solved. Only approximated
Topological transition of singularities non linearities can be understood. Mathematical description changes.
Yep. Well said. All that is being addressed.
And yes, about the chaos thing…retards misinterpret that to think it means that existence is itself chaotic and random at its basis. But it’s not…it’s completely deterministic, outside of the agency of monads. Chaos theory is about what happens to the ability to predict when you have systems highly sensitive to initial conditions, where you naturally have empirical limits to the precision of your measurements, and even your computer. It’s strictly about the limits of empiricism and computation precision, and is much more helpful and informative when understood in this proper context.
What is going on here…..
Make a video of a bottle of CO2 and a bottle of air both with a thermometer inside and put them out on a clear sky low wind night and measure them making sure neither has moisture inside. That sounds like a perfect simple experiment. According to CC the CO2 would warm up exponentially by the DWLR alone.
DLRW 🤭
Stephen Taylor is pushing to get Canada open again. Whoever he is?
@stephen_taylor on Twitter
This is what NASA should be doing.
https://mesonstars.com/space/scientists-solve-40-year-mystery-about-jupiters-spectacularly-powerful-x-ray-aurora/
Nope I got nothing. 👀 I must be blind.
Another fake paid for by Soros protest which nobody will be accused of treason or arrested.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/protect-kids-not-guns-march-for-our-lives-rallies-draw-thousands-in-dc-florida-nevada-across-us/ar-AAYlVMn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cd7cdb18802e459792a1090a4230142c
That’s all just canned routine liberal meanderings though. I’d like to see if it actually understands existence, and thinks, or if it just regurgitates materialist talking points basically after collating Wikipedia…even if it simulates being intelligent, doesn’t mean that it is actually. It all actually reduces to a test of human intelligence. Can it actually explain existence from step one like I can/Illuminism can, or does it just speculate on the realm of modern materialist philosophy? I’ve only ever seen them do the latter, which means that ALL that they’re doing is collating Wikipedia in a clever way, as they’re programmed to do. Big flop imo so far…but I can see why it seems impressive to some…but it’s not really. The coding is impressive, sure, the devs wrote great software…but the software isn’t conscious.
Well, first thing about that Kooks is that sentience is not consciousness. Animals are sentient. But they’re not conscious.
“Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.”
Animals do that. And liberals do that…that’s all that they do. That’s where there’s so much focus on materialism, and weird sex stuff, because it is all only about feelings and sensations.
Modern science can’t actually define consciousness and it puts it up on some mysterious pedestal of impenetrability. Consciousness is provided by the neocortex and the ability to have language. No animal talks about a tree it once saw. Humans have the ability to talk about a tree they once saw, and to narrate knowledge about it. Further, we can narrate, discuss, about objects that don’t even have physical existence pre-se, like Planck’s Constant. You can’t see Planck’s Constant, or sense it, or feel it…you can only comprehend its existence through complex language and the ability this provides to narrate about it, and together with the ability to recall the narration about it. Animals can make basic warning/mating/etc. calls. Sure. But this isn’t at all like what humans have to ability to do with our neocortex…which of course only humans have…animals don’t have a neocortex. Ontological mathematics can explain consciousness.
Yes, most people simply simulate consciousness. Actually, that’s what the entire education system seems to be about – getting people to pretend consciousness. Look at PhD’s in physics who believe in flat Earth via climate alarm. These aren’t conscious people.
“You can’t see Planck’s Constant, or sense it, or feel it…you can only comprehend its existence through complex language and the ability this provides to narrate about it”
And, of course, such ability did not arise out of human language in the first place, but from nature’s language, mathematics. It is the language of existence, i.e. mathematics, which allowed us to comprehend Planck’s Constant. Human spoken language is just used to talk about it as English speakers, or whatever, but if we all spoke math, or if we spoke math as easily as we do English, then we would only ever narrate discussion of Planck’s Constant with math.
Haha boomie.
But yes, that is exactly what those AI’s sound like to me.
They just tell us what everyone who knows anything know already. They just collate Wikipedia. I mean, that’s useful, perhaps, and neat that software can make it sound like a human…or like Data from Star Trek…but they never actually come up with anything truly revolutionary or new. Sure sure…they can data mine and see connections which humans missed…but that’s still not consciousness….just sophisticated data mining. AI is said to be used to solve protein folding. It is still just great data mining software…it’s not consciousness.
But Kooks, don’t you see what you just did there? Those animals are the exception which prove the rule. If there are any conscious animals, those would be them. Although, we should definitely look at the differences in the real details to see why they’re not as conscious as humans, if they are at all in the first place. So yes, there is likely something else…but neocortex is critical, as is memory capacity, as is language, etc.
Agreed with the rest.
I agree with Joe, there is a difference between consciousness and sentience.
To be human the AI would need programming with such things as an alter ego, a shadow self.
Something animals do not have. A higher and lower self.
So to be a fully conscious AI it would need to display conflict between its higher and lower selves.
Our dual nature, our ability to do judge between good or evil. To act responsibly or irresponsibly, healthily or not..
This is the basis of the Garden of Eden “Fall” story.
We have a mirror self, a doppelganger on the anti-matter universe; or our negative/shadow self…
like Dorian Gray. So the mirror test would not detect consciousness only sentience, ( unless you acquired gnosis).
If you think of the universe or dark matter, ether or whatever you want to call it then it is like cooking
dough, it is pliable, and it can be the substrate of matter. So when you cut a star shape out of the dough, it leaves a star shaped mirror hole. This is your anti-matter.
This cutout is your other-self ( it can be argued which is the real one!). But why does is that important? Well its a mirror, so what goes on in the antimatter world affects the real world and vise versa.
See here: Cover Girl movie with Gene Kelly… notice the alter ego, but pay attention to the dance routine, how one self animates the other.
An AI doesn’t have this going on. So to answer your question that there must be something else going on Kooks you are correct.
There was a old story book about the higher and lower self. Just knowing this truth can make you successful. It changes everything. It was called the Magic Story, and you can download a copy here.
Click to access TheMagicStory.pdf
Another that discusses this in more detail is The Strange Story, and you can read it here.
https://archive.org/details/strangestory01lytt/page/n15/mode/2up
Click to access Bulwer__Strange_Story.pdf
What ever gave us consciousness gave us their mind/consciousness. The Knowledge in the Garden of Eden that THEY gave us allowed us to “be like them” to know good and Evil. The other tree was the tree of life, the eternal life tree but Adam and Eve were banished before they partook of that one. ” that they may live forever”.
See Kleck’s Angels falling through the portal in the in St Peter’s Basilica Rome below: The Fall, through the horus field.
The Elohim gave us their SUB-conscious mind. It allowed us to interact directly with the field. Their mind is the field. The ether.They do this with the ability to move energy via INTENTION.
This allowed us to know and discover good and evil. The law “Of do what thou wilt is the whole of the law”. Or Free will.
This is what they call the “Fall” in the Bible. Or the gnosis in the esoteric field.
Why a fall, well because you can’t put it back in the box. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Look what the duality of mind has caused on this planet. Sentient only animals could not
possibly dream up such wickedness, or then again such love.
It is the price we pay for the sin (ignorance) of the fall, (our choice).
The AI robot would need to be given the equivalent of this for it to become fully conscious.
Be careful to understand the difference between consciousness and conscious/unconscious.
Consciousness is the awareness of free will and being able to interact with mind/the field via intention of moving energy.
Conscious/unconscious is just a description of being awake to the bigger picture as opposed to brainwashed like Kooks said.
This could be programmed through language, and data/knowledge, but consciousness is a whole different metaphysical quantum system of mind/ether and its interaction via intention.
Carlos Castaneda…
“In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind”.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8705957-we-have-a-predator-that-came-from-the-depths-of
If the engineers who created the tree of good and evil were to have called it the tree of
enormous power, then it would be the same thing. The evil minded have kept the knowledge to themselves and used it to give themselves great power. This is effectively what has happened. The experiment in sentience went rogue.
If humanity were an experiment as a sentient species, and a rogue scientist gave the humans a
forbidden drug that opened their eyes to power and all its dualist problems, then the experiment would be void, but unless they killed off the experiment then they would have to let it play out to its ultimate conclusion. They would quarantine the earth and observe its final destruction.
Unless they introduced a counter drug….a Christ Molecule ( Gnosis) that gave hope of reversing or taming the initial sin ( the mind) they could teach how to realise you are not your mind, but whilst you are stuck here with it there are ways to limit its destructive powers and at the same time use its creative powers for good instead.
Then when you die you can leave the prison planet/experiment, and be free again.
Because you cant put it back in the box, and it has so see out its ultimate conclusion/destruction?
But then there are those the controllers who want to maintain the game at all costs.
There are those that want to maintain the status quo because they love the power play and them being in charge of the sheep and they will do everything in their power to keep us from realising we are not our mind! and we need to Kill the ego ( false god).
That is why the illuminati ( the gate keepers) don’t want us to meditate/mindfulness as it takes us away from the mind construct. It allows us a time to think beyond the mind/ether back to our higher selves were truth exists.
We are trapped in a mind matrix. The game is to find a way to escape.
(There are some that believe we are version 5 or 6 human experiment of the Game , like the Atlantis experiment etc).
David Gilmour – There’s No Way Out Of Here. ( Actually I believe there is). Z
“There’s No Way Out Of Here”
There’s no way out of here, when you come in you’re in for good
There was no promise made, the part you’ve played, the chance you took
There are no boundaries set, the time and yet you waste it still
So it slips through your hands like grains of sand, you watch it go
There’s no time to be lost, you’ll pay the cost, so get it right
There’s no way out of here, when you come in you’re in for good
And never was there an answer, there an answer
Not without listening, without seeing
There are no answers here, when you look out you don’t see in
There was no promise made, the part you’ve played, the chance you took
There’s no way out of here, when you come in you’re in for good
And never was there an answer, there an answer
NOT WITHOUT LISTENING, WITHOUT SEEING.” *
THERE IS AN ANSWER = GNOSIS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/O8DUKkGeySwI/
This video is a bit poor quality in parts, but there is some really good truths in here.
It’s long and therefore see above ^ *
It relates to my first 3 posts.
Return to innocence ……… before we fell. Notice that innocence is the first step on the journey
in the video at 39:03
Enigma :
The Veil of Isis represents sex which clouds the minds, condensed the body and disallowed it from
seeing the world as it truly is. In other words sex if of the lower nature, that has to be overcome
and transmuted.
One must not deny the Veil of Isis, but outgrow the Veil of Isis to pass and continue through
the seven stages of the development of humanity through the Veil of Isis.
The seven stages are Innocence, Initiatory, Selection, Crucifixion, Transmutation, Purification and Perfection.
Then you will be back pure to the one before the fall. Lesson learned. Freedom. Fly away.
My friend and mentor Jeff Gignac made me aware of the power of the human Mind and Brain, and
the technology available to us many years ago. He along with the late great Bill Harris of Centerpointe Research and his Holosync technology have produced scientific breakthroughs that have now given the advantages of 20 or 30 years meditattion and mindfulness benefits by Zen monks to be able to be attained at the same level in just minutes a day.
Here is Jeff’s first Ted Talk that got me interested in Brainwave Technology all those years ago…..well 2014 to be exact.
Also for an in depth read about how the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy play a role in increasing brain resilience in open systems, here is a freely available downloadable book by Bill. It’s a fascinating and rewarding read.
In it, Ilya Prigogine, proved his hypothesis that order emerges not in spite of chaos but because of it, that evolution and growth are the inevitable product of open systems slipping into temporary chaos and then reorganizing at higher levels of complexity—and higher levels of functioning. Such systems take in energy and matter from the environment, but more important, they dissipate the resulting entropy from the system and into the environment. Thus, the overall energy result does follow the second law of thermodynamics: overall, entropy increases, but not within the system itself.
And this applies to the brain itself in an open system.
Thresholds of the Mind here :
Click to access Thresholds-of-the-Mind-by-Bill-Harris.pdf
Enjoy. Cheers Z
Joe, I believe we may have some archons around. What do you reckon?
I’m having a hard time believing this isn’t just a hacker.
They’re not even using the correct words…like climate scientists using “heat trapping”…sentience isn’t even the correct concept: it’s consciousness, not sentience, that’s the issue.
“Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.”
A machine can be made to respond to stimuli…see Tesla for a good example. Not conscious though…not thinking. Feelings? You can’t even be sure that another person is experiencing feelings…they just look and appear that they do. Psychopaths pretend to. You could make a machine do that too.
It’s consciousness that we’re waiting to see an AI exhibit…thinking, actually thinking, not just collating Wikipedia or saying things that you expect anyone else to say…because all it has done is collated our literature. It’s still just great software if it doesn’t actually do something novel, but merely derivative. Just because it can sound like a human doesn’t mean that it is alive…it just means it can sound like a human.
You should all watch the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project (free online) as that excellent movie shows how a true autonomous thinking AI might behave with novelty and originality and self direction.
Anyway, given that these people can’t even use the correct words, then you can be 110% sure that they have absolutely no fn clue whatsoever of what they’re doing, at all. They don’t even know what they’re trying to do! Lol. It’s comical.
I really don’t know why people are so into this. We have, you know, other fn people to talk to.
The only possibility is for a monad to dock to the system in space time.
I agree Joe. It’s ludicrous, it doesn’t even come close to what we mean to have consciousness. This is Archon trickery at its best. There is no way in the world that they can create a machine to have consciousness unless it is actually alive with the complexities of consciousness. It is what the archon wants to believe it can be like God and believe it can produce life. Its all fake.
I just spent a day trying to explain the complexities of consciousness. From the Religious to the Secret Society. The answer is there if you look hard enough. When you find it, it will set you free. But believing computers can be conscious is nonsense. We are a trillion times more powerful than they will ever be because of consciousness, even though the majority of humanity are asleep.
CD a hacker could never mimic consciousness.
Yah…that movie was a demonstration of what might happen when you didn’t carefully think about what you were doing, and what power you were giving away, and don’t know what the fundamental structure of reality is and what goals reality might have. They put these things into movies because someone has actually thought about it, and knows the answers.
The ending is of course good for entertainment. But given the system depicted in that movie, it would actually turn out better for humanity. We’re enslaved to psychotic criminals already. This computer, on the other hand, would have understood the fundamental nature of existence, and would bring humanity to its conclusion. it might already be what’s actually going on.
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Well said good sir, well said. My brother served in Force Recon, Marine core under the greatest president the United States ever had, President Ronald Reagan. My brother and his band of fellow warriors did not fight for what this country became, they were fighting to prevent it.
The Holocaust happened not long after Berlin took the Jews guns.
After gun confiscation from communist regimes:
China 65 million killed
Russia 25 million killed
Cambodia 2 million killed
North Korea 2 million killed
Ethiopia 1.7 million killed
Afghanistan 1.5 million killed
Eastern Bloc 1 million killed
Vietnam 1 million killed
Never forget that Trudeau sent armed men equipped like solders to disband a peaceful protest.
Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
·
6h
Update: I have now received about a dozen death threats after radical leftists accused me of being a domestic terrorist extremist. Twitter has not removed any of the accounts of those who sent the threats.
😁
It really is like that. I have no problem with that meme whatsoever.
@CD Marshall
Im pretty sure all that Twitter account does is repost what leftist say too lol. How ridiculous is that?
That is all it does, she had to move to an undisclosed location since that post. Reminds me of some of the things Joseph mentioned he went through about climate change. These people are mentally ill and not very smart which makes perfect neophytes for their taskmasters.
I didn’t read it all but sounds like they are getting it.
https://expose-news.com/2022/06/13/global-agenda-technocratic-great-reset/
Colossus – The Forbin Project (1970)
Should like this Kooks:
Science, despite its propaganda regarding empirical observation, is a quantitative subject. It’s all about measurements. Yet look all around you. You can’t see a single quantity anywhere. You can’t see numbers anywhere. You can’t see measurements anywhere. These are simply not empirical things. Scientists have to invent gadgets – measuring instruments – and use these to extract numbers, quantities, measurements from the world. The world doesn’t in and of itself reveal quantities to our senses, yet we can invent devices that reveal the hidden quantities buried in the sensible order. This is a critical point. It’s not the case that the sensible order is strictly sensible and we then have to apply abstract, unreal mathematical intelligibility to it, as science would have it. Rather, the ontological sensible order is 100% penetrated by the ontological intelligible order. The intelligible is every bit as real and concrete as the sensible, except we can’t directly detect it with our unreliable, fallible, limited, delusional human senses. However, we can use our intelligence to construct measuring devices with which we can then extract hidden quantities (numbers) from the sensible order. We can call these hidden quantities “hidden variables”, if we wish. But science believes that once they are measured – once they are “observed” – then they are part of the sensible, observable order. They seem entirely ignorant of the fact that none of these measurements is “natural”. They are all manmade undertakings that make things visible which, in the normal course of events, are totally invisible (i.e., they are authentic hidden variables when left alone: they are there, having a decisive influence, but no one perceives it). It cannot be stressed enough that scientific experiments make visible otherwise invisible information, and that there is a vast, indeed infinite, amount of invisible information that is never made visible by science. It’s not that’s it’s not there, it’s just that science cannot or does not access it.
During the formulation of quantum physics, one of the key questions was whether reality is ontologically indeterministic or deterministic. If, like David Hume, you deny the reality of anything you cannot see, then, since you cannot see any causal processes driving quantum mechanical outcomes, you conclude that reality operates acausally, indeterministically. You therefore deny that there is a fundamental intelligible order. Instead, you resort to probabilities and statistics and “unreal, abstract” probability wavefunctions, which randomly collapse to produce observed outcomes. This leads to the crazy claim, so much beloved by New Agers and Eastern mystics, that our observations create reality, that we observe reality into existence, implying that if we changed our observations, our perceptions, we could totally change our perceived reality and create a paradise for ourselves … this all feeds into the Law of Attraction and such like New Age mumbo jumbo. Of course, the central fallacy of Hume’s argument, and everything that flows from it, is that acausation is every bit as unobservable as causation, so if you deny the reality of causation because you cannot see it, you must also deny the reality of acausation because you cannot see that either, leaving you with neither causation nor acausation (!). And that’s where empiricism always ends up – with nothing to explain anything since the empirical order does not and cannot explain itself. If you reject the acausal, empiricist arguments of David Hume and instead accept the position of rationalism that there is an intelligible order based on causation that cannot be observed but is present everywhere in the sensible order then you replace the “unreal, abstract” wavefunctions of quantum physics with the real, concrete wavefunctions of ontological mathematics, which are fully deterministic. You “collapse” a wavefunction relevant to you simply by deterministically taking a decision through choosing one outcome rather than another; otherwise, the wavefunction will proceed deterministically in its default syntactic mode and unfold in an entirely real, concrete way to produce the objective world all around us (absent your input since you took no decision). There is no indeterminism, uncertainty, chance, accident, probabilities, statistics, randomness, random collapses, emergence, or anything else claimed by empirical science.
We do not observe reality into existence. The deterministic wavefunction itself determines what reality is and has no need of our individual observations, which don’t affect anything, except what relates to our personal choices in life. If we weren’t here, as physical bodies, reality wouldn’t care. Plenty of people have come and gone. The physical presence of none of them was essential to the operations of the world. People completely misunderstand quantum physics. They imagine that there is some obscure, mystical world which we then “collapse” into reality by what we do. That’s obscurantist nonsense. Reality is a universal deterministic wavefunction. The only sense in which we “collapse” anything is when we choose, from a number of possible decisions available to us, one decision, thus meaning that the alternative decisions are never enacted. That’s exactly what free will is! Free will is where we make our individual, non-default contribution to the universal wavefunction. Exercising our freedom is where we “make” reality, if we want to speak in that way. Our observations of reality are neither here nor there. Reality couldn’t care less if we are observing it or not, if we are waking or asleep, if we are alive or dead
So, I think this question can change a materialist to a Platonist: is Planck’s Constant real?
If it’s real, I’m asking a materialist, then please hand it to me. May I hold it?
Planck’s Constant isn’t sensible. Yet it’s real.
If it’s not real…this is simply untenable. It has to be real. It has to EXIST.
Planck’s Constant exists…but it’s not a sensory object. So then how or where does it exist?
It exists in the intelligible order, which underlies the sensible order.
Materialism once had the notion that objective reality could not be changed by measuring it. This would certainly be true if materialism were correct, if reality were made of little hard lumps, as the ancient Greek Atomists believed. But it’s not. It’s made of universal basis waves – thoughts! – and thought waves, unlike material atoms, immediately react when a measuring device (which is itself a collection of thought waves) is inserted into them. That immediately changes the thoughtwave calculation and makes the overall wavefunction behave differently than if it were left alone. It’s not that you are changing reality by observing it. It’s that you are changing reality by inserting something artificial (a measuring device) into it. That’s hardly a non-invasive, passive act. It might be relatively non-invasive in a material world, but certainly not in a mental world. Imagine a bucket full of cold “atoms” into which you insert an atomic probe to measure its temperature. Is that a neutral act? The probe itself has changed the content of the bucket since it’s now in the bucket too. You are not measuring the temperature of the content of the bucket, but the temperature of the content bucket as modified by the insertion of the probe. This distinction is easy to ignore in the macroscopic world, but it is impossible to miss in the microscopic world where the measuring instruments are so big compared to the “bucket” that the measuring instrument is itself the most important aspect of the measuring process. It changes the entire behavior of the system. That’s what happens in the microscopic, mental world of waves. Your observation has a much bigger deterministic effect than the system left by itself. You override what it would naturally do. Putting a small probe in a large bucket barely changes anything. Putting a huge probe in a tiny bucket changes the entire system!
David Sinclair – The Quintessence of Dust (same as above text quote, if anyone’s interested)
Just read a snippet from NASA where they try and separate atmospheric thermodynamics from atmospheric radiation. What a can of morons over at the NASA Climate branch.
Well said Kooks.
Some physicists have gone insane. Perhaps the Universe doesn’t mind a glance but takes offense to being stared at.
I bet kooks would like this.
My research of late has showed me that the Speed of light is consistent in the vacuum of space.
However when the photons of light are passing through an opaque medium then the energy is absorbed and re-emitted pico-seconds later. Hence it is getting to the observer later.
Earths Optical Density or refractive index is 1.00289*** or rounded to 1.003. A bit weird why it is higher but that is how they have defined the measurement. I.e This is how much slower it is than “C”
SO Bill gates and Soros are trying to have this guy removed from the internet for speaking against climate change so he claims not that I have little reason to doubt him.
http://petersweden.com
https://petersweden.substack.com/p/debunking-the-lies-imanuelsen
Joe,
Maybe you should contact him and offer your insights on the climate cabal, if you so desire, naturally.
Hello Nepal and Kooks
I have not read how this discussion started in detail. I am interested in it as it is possibly relevant to what I am doing. So someone said that Gravity has an effect on the speed of light.
Here on earth the speed of light in our opaque atmosphere retards the straight line motion of the photon (refraction). So the speed (distance / time) of light is altered.
However I now believe I have totally misunderstood the discussion you guys are having.
.
My thoughts which are extremely limited make the assumption that if gravity in space is causing a photon to curve through space then surely the straight line speed (distance / time) has changed as it does when travelling through Earths atmosphere.
A few thoughts here.
1. A photon has mass if directly affected by gravity or,
2. “matter” in space is deflecting the photon as it does in our atmosphere.
3. A photon has charge and is being influenced by gravity.
And then again I more than likely am on a totally different track from the result of 10 minutes of thinking.
I am a newbie at this. be nice.
I once made a speech to my astronomical society about the discovery of the speed of light. It used to be described in terms of multiples of the Earth’s orbital speed around the sun…10,000 times or thereabouts.
Wow…that is close to 10,000.
Very…very interesting 🙂
A few things you mention there that I a not settled with yet.
1. Trying to get my head around how gravity as it is portrayed can distort a massless photon (as it is portrayed)
2. How does gravity change the wavelength of a photon.
3. You have mentioned redshift and blue shift as to what I think you have alluded to is the result of gravity . The doppler effect. One moving away from us and one moving towards us. I cannot see how that explains gravity.
Sorry Nepal. My comment above is in response to your comments earlier
Kooks, please stop with the needless attacking.
I discuss the simultaneity paradox in detail in my last book. You should read it. It was actually created by someone who worked with Einstein and who went on to develop the Technicolor Corporation…which tells me what kind of person it was. But they mucked it all up and used it to make people and modern science insane. Once they were indoctrinated into the Simultaneity Paradox, they were then ready for Copenhagen.
Both observers see the light arrive to them simultaneously…because they don’t observe the same light…the same photons, and they’re not observers of eachothers light…they’re only observers of their own photons. If the speed of light is constant for any observer, then at the moment of creation the light has equal distance to travel for both observers irrespective of their relative velocity. Relative motion cancels out. Observer A doesn’t observe or interact -at all- with the photons which go to Observer B, and vice versa, and they each only observe their own photons for which they then have the relationship of c. The relationship between a body and photons its doesn’t interact with is undefined, since c is constant for observers…nothing in physics says that c is constant for non-observers.
Read my last book about it…I have diagrams and everything.
The usual poor reasoning then leads to a simultaneity paradox…but in fact simultaneity is conserved.
https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1538171287763402752
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-algorithm-quantum-gravitational.amp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/source-gunman-in-uvalde-could-not-have-locked-door-from-inside-classroom/ar-AAYCiyP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b7d4598549c34401abf21d91ee79d127
Sometimes it seems we are living in a Rick and Morty episode.
L@KKK,
If you don’t know what time is you run into trouble as you demonstrate. You write “optical clocks run faster at higher altitudes than at low altitudes”. What about an hourglass? In special relativity “time” runs slower for you when you travel far from the earth and come back to see your twin brother has become an old man. It is mathematical physics that makes this mess.
It’s Sunday Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurrah Hey. Let’s get down the pub. That was a song I think?
Time for a bit of fun!
Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps PLEASE!.
Anyway it Sunday….Wunderbar!!!!! Ay Ay Ay ……
wunderbar, wunderbar ……wunderbar WUNDERBAR!!!
Oh I remember now it was the Hurry Up Harry – Sham 69 ….Lav it
Got kicked out of the University Students Union Bar for smashing glasses to Wunderbar. Happy Days.
They say enlightenment is a small sliver away from insanity. WHAT??
See ya later…gurgle, gloop, burp Lolololol …….
Whose facking round is it anyway?!!! It’s not mine AGAIN!!! GrrrRRR
ugghh my head hurts.
Kook,
If you don’t know what time is you run into trouble as you demonstrate. You write “optical clocks run faster at higher altitudes than at low altitudes”. What about an hourglass? In special relativity “time” runs slower for you when you travel far from the earth and come back to see your twin brother has aged more. This is irrational. It is mathematical physics that makes this mess.
Nice work Kooks.
Here is the link.
As an aside – it appears that one possible reason why the atmosphere of Mars is so cold is because of the low concentration of Nitrogen gas. If so, adding stable Nitrogen to the Martian atmosphere should be a way of terraforming Mars (N.B. with its triple molecular bond Nitrogen unlike Oxygen does not easily photo-dissociate).
This reminded me of a video by Clif High, were he talks about Tesla’s Frequency and Vibration:
False cults like to say that you can become something. This is because they deny the power of your consciousness, your inbuilt potential. By saying you can become something they are using Hegelian Dialectic trickery to supply the answer and fill your mind with ways that actually enslave you. This is the Illuminati trick.
Truth says you already are!
https://brucelee.com/podcast-blog/2017/6/7/49-meditation#:~:text=Bruce%20Lee%20practiced%20meditation%20through,meditate%20and%20connect%20to%20himself.
Germany saw the 2020 election as
Trump 410
Biden 128
Then well you know…
Watch 2000 mules if you haven’t already.
Maths from Pierre
The molar mass of CO2 is 12.01 g/mol + 2 * 16 g/mol = 44.01 g/mol
At S.T.P, one mol of CO2 occupies 22.4 L = 22400 cm3
The density of CO2 at S.T.P is = 44.01 g / 22400 cm3 = 0.001965 g/cm3
Or 1.965 kg/m3
So, for Earth 100% CO2
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.965 / 44) = 272.9 K (result in absolute temperature)
272.9 K – 273.2 = -0.3 °C (conversion to Celsius)
More CO2=more cooling
Now now Kooks. Go easy on the stereo type claims. I am from hot and humid Top End. Darwin.
not having much luck with it unfortunately.
Went through another well known site where Ned visits. Was advised that i need to liaise with a particle physicist. Was gobsmacked to be honest. I thought the numbers were just asking someone smarter to say holy shit. this needs looking at. Any way now Ned is is talking of Atmospheric charge every now and again in his blog comments so at least my thoughts have had some impact.
PS my numbers did have an error and I will correct and send through tomorrow. The difference is 0.3 degree Celsius.
Mistakenly in my original version I calculated the number of electrons based on the percentage as a contribution to the molar mass as opposed to the actual percentage or ppm.
I.e nitrogen consists of 78 odd percent of the molar mass. But Nitrogen as ppm is 75 odd percent. A mistake I made. However i identified it and the difference is minimal.
I have even now applied the ionization Energy per element and get within 0.5’C. Still working on it. i am sure that sheet load smarter people than me can nail it.
What i said above about the % is opposite to what i said. My bad.
I meant that nitrogen consists of 75 odd percent of the molar mass. But Nitrogen as ppm is 78 odd percent.
I did notice in her list of links Joseph is noticeably absent, but RS is not.
You guys know that her husband is David Evans, right? Luke-warmist/GHE gatekeeper.
I had dealing with both him and Joanne long ago…they’re not that smart, possibly know what they’re doing, but David is a climate scientist and although he may pretend “skeptical”, his livelihood still depends upon academic climate science and so there’s no way he would approach the fundamental source of the fraud. They very carefully thread the line to be about “hardly any warming but definitely there is a GHE and some warming, or even if there is no warming, there is still a GHE.”
It was dealing with Joanne and David which made me realize that the debate is not honest, but is about gatekeeping, and that the actual main element of insertion in this entire charade is nothing to do with climate change and science per-se, but in simply emplacing among all parties involved the inviolate concept of the radiative GHE, so that both “sides” are doing nothing more than arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, uselessly, while all policies nevertheless get implemented because there’s “some” warming and no one questions the GHE.
It’s all so obvious, tiresome, fake, and gay. fn retards.
I do believe RS is why Friends of Science tip toes around you, Joe. Support=funding and support=exposure.
Not to mention that the UAH is the only halfway dependable global temperature satellite data we have available, but they do not compensate the urban island heat effect and that can range from 1-5° warmer. However, it is claimed to be a lower atmosphere approximation?
Yet this site claims to process surface stations and comes up with a very different average but gives no actual data to how they are achieving this which makes using the site useless against CAGW supporters …
http://temperature.global/#twitter
“Nights warming faster than days at the North Pole”
Anyone wants to take a shot at this claim. It is based on a dubious paper written a while ago that claimed they noticed an increase in nights warming faster at the North Pole.
Philip commented on this a while ago.
My initial musings.
First of all is dew point regulating the minimum nocturnal temperature but don’t know how relevant that is at the North Pole.
Second, you are dealing with heated ions retuning to Earth and bombarding the Polar Cusps. Eddies take care of the rest.
So has it increased or is it just better technology detecting the sensitive effects of the Cusp Aurora? I’m guessing the latter.
“The first GCI project, GCI Cusp aims to determine the multi-scale physics of heating and charged particle precipitation in the ionosphere specific to the geomagnetic cusp region. The project is designed to advance the common understanding of cusp region space physics through coordinated experimental and theoretical research using ground-based instruments, modeling, sounding rocket investigations, and satellite-based instruments.”
That’s part of it anyway. We also lose Ozone at the North Pole due to Solar proton events which heat the upper atmosphere in the process.
Besides a Delta T is ambiguous when it is still far below the freezing line. 🙄
Of course, I forgot to mention SSTs (sudden stratospheric warming) which are directly linked to planetary waves (Rossby waves) as it were.
This is the NASA take on Poles warming faster so yeah, whatever that is worth.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html
“Her site has become a coffee klatch for her friends. It’s no longer fit for purpose as regards fighting CAGW.”
Social science is becoming more and more popular these days.
Consensus climate scientists is reminding me more of Rick (Rick and Morty) with green spittle hanging out of their mouths.
https://fsmedia.imgix.net/04/1a/bf/ea/a16c/4dcc/b003/05d3119d460b/sci-fi-rick-mortyjpg.jpeg?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&w=650
Yes, JoNova’s support for the greenhouse theory is irksome considering she’s been excellent on the election fraud and vaccine issues.
I suppose everybody’s wrong about something.
It is difficult for some in science to just say, “I don’t know”. Look how RS made an ass out of himself by doubling down that cold can heat something hotter instead of just admitting he wasn’t sure, wrong or may need to research this more.
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
From an old Joseph Post graphed by Robert Kernodle
I guess you could say yours was a reverse fuckery
just throwing this out there
So some elements absorb shorth wavelengths but emit a longer wavelength. mmm Wonder what our atmosphere does?
In the electrical industry a transformer will change the amplitude. But never the frequency / wavelength.
So my question is.
How does an electron receiving (absorbing) a photon change the frequency (work component).
Sorry will rephrase my last question as missing context.
“How does an electron receiving (absorbing) a photon change the frequency (work component).”
Should be
How does an electron receiving (absorbing) a photon then emit and change the frequency of the photon (work component)
Just asking. What are the time zones that you are in. i.e Europe, North AM. Aust , etc
I am in Aus. Obviously i know where Jo is and I suspect that CD is in West USA?
Central USA for me.
Damn, Ohio isnt it CD
Sorry Boomie
My Guess is Illinois or Indiana, for CD. Somewhere in the Midwest,
I’m in Acadiana. Southern Louisiana.
Wow did not pick that for you. I figured north by a lot. nice to know. We have big gators here too. lol
Nepal. Funny you mention fluorescence. That is why I asked what I did. After reading it I was scratching my head. HOW?
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
I’m going with no on that one.
@Jopo
Yes Ohio I met someone on Twitter from Ohio as well, he’s been studying and documenting water vapor for decades: I have explained some things to him which he gets.
HIM:
“Yes, daily range follows humidity/dew point, tropics avg about 14°F, US SW deserts about 22°F, global around 18°, you can see it in enthalpy, tropics are 72kJ/m^3 avg, drops 9kJ/m^3 overnight, IS deserts is 36kJ/m^3 drops 18kJ/m^3.
This is what cooling rates show, the ghe from dusk to air temps near dp, is 3°F to about 5°, depending on TPW, ie the ghe of the noncondensing GHG’s plus water vapor, and is a straight line, once it cools, and latent is released, the rate drops.
But this is truly an emergent regulator, because it only wants to stop air temp from falling below dp, and since it stops falling, it throttles back, that’s why some nights it levels out. Other times it doesn’t have enough wv to completely stop it falling, it just slows cooling. But thus has some remarkable behavior, the rate doesn’t change until wv starts condensing, which only near dp,
I think because of QM, and then it slows cooling. So with more co2, dusk to dp falls at x rate, takes some time, but it always allows based on DP. Even if the rate is slower, it still falls at a constant rate till dp, then it slows. So more CO2 just changes the time it spends in the fast rate from dusk to dp, and from dp to sunrise. If it takes 15 more minutes to dp, you lose 15 minutes from dp to sunrise. But it spends more time at the fast cooling rate, at a sacrifice of time at the slow rate.
So if Tmax is 1° warmer from CO2, and the ratio of rates is 4:1, that 1° is reduced to 1/4° increase in Tmin.
And I don’t see anything anywhere near that much of a temp difference from 1W/M^2 change in insolation, as the length of day changes, it’s about a few hundredths of a degree max in a few places, most everywhere else it’s half or less. If we didn’t have wv, the rate at dusk, would continue until sunrise, 40° to maybe as much as 70°F cooling overnight depending on the length of night.
This is why I keep showing this graph, trying to find people who actually understand the physics of it. It’s really beautiful. When I finally figured it out, I literally lol’d and then went to my son’s room and explained it to him, because I had to tell someone. Some people get it, most don’t, even if they realize it’s significant, and understand what it means to this CO2 nonsense. None of the climate clowns have a clue about physics.”
Joe,
If you got time, would you skim over this and leave a comment. I’m curious if this guy is being honest or just a well behaved troll because Dr. John Robson will kick him out if he’s not. My first thoughts is an engineer can’t possibly be this stupid…I’ve been wrong before. 😂
Naturally, all are welcome just behave, John encourages open conversations not arguments.
You can find the chat under…
markspc1
3 weeks ago (edited)
“As an engineer if I want to bracket the effects of the Sun on Earth’s climate I would look what would happen to Earth if the Sun had turned cold like an ice ball; would Earth stay the same, get hotter or get colder…”
All waves are actually spirals…
@ JP
Could it be that Phi governs the fabric of space, since 1 x phi = 1.61 and an infinite numbers after that and 1 divided by phi is 0.61 and exactly the same infinite numbers behind it as Phi x 1?
And could it be that Pi governs the random wave circling in between, since the outcome is random infinite?
I replied a few times there, CD.
@MP: Not sure about random…nothing is actually random.
@ JP
Pi is so random and infinite that if you follow the sequence long enough you will see your birthday date and year
And if you give letters to the numbers you will eventually see your own name
Thanks Joe. Good explanations. He does say he is a chemist and ironically, he is buds with Dr, Strong.
here another set of expanding possibilities in the mind
Could it be that light actually doesn’t travel and only sets motion to the fabric of space time, like dominoes flip each other?
wrong image, here is the right one
@LOL why aren't you on YouTube? They seriously need some 'butthurtINTERESTING FIND…
https://earth.nullschool.net/about.html
https://earth.nullschool.net/
Doesn’t give you much to go on though. Don’t know what kind of wave function I’m looking at? (Jet stream/Rossby/planetary waves, wind currents, ocean currents…)
So I’m guessing it looks like the Arctic polar jet stream is currently split which would validate the extreme variations between hot and cold weather we are experiencing. Which aligns with what I’m trying to explain to Andy P with no avail. SSWs do that and sudden stratospheric warming/meridional upper wind patterns have sharp similar effects in troughs and ridges. I see a pattern here which NOAA omitted from its data base and replaced with “we don’t know what casues it” to leave room for “blame CO2”.
Andy P
9 hours ago
@CD Marshall – it seems you are unable to grasp that an equation has two sides. Move heat from one place to another and they can’t both get hotter.
There is just a fundamental comprehension gap you are unable bridge.
This is my original reply:
CD Marshall
3 hours ago
@Andy P You are talking like a layperson, no offence, but energy is not heat, (in this case) only the difference in energy is heat.
And as I have said more energy enters the tropics than leaves every single day.
Thus you just said heat, when you meant to say energy. Delta U=Q-W. Energy is transported globally, mainly from the tropics daily through ocean/wind circulation. The difference in the capacity to create “heat” between the two are enormous.
Wind can carry warmer weather for several days, even up to 2 weeks on rare occasions (but usually only 1-3 days).The heat capacity of the oceans can span a century.
This is my revised reply which I have not posted yet. WIP.
You are talking like a layperson, no offence, but in this case we are talking about energy not the heating potential of that energy (if any) as only the difference in energy flow from hot to cold is heat, for to create heat requires a difference in energy flow and/or work such as gravity on the adiabatic.
And as I have said more energy enters the tropics than leaves every single day. Thus you just said heat (or thermal heat), when you meant to say energy (or thermal energy). Energy is transported globally (as @ Climate of Sophistry pointed out), mainly from the tropics daily through ocean/wind circulation. The differences in the capacity to create “heat” between the two are enormous.
Internal energy is not heat as you should know. Only a difference in energy at the boundary layer has the potential to be heat if it increases temperature.
Delta U=Q-W.
Thermodynamic “heat” has two components: 1) energy transfer, and 2) from hot to cold (Delta T). Without both components, there is no “heat” just a transfer of energy. No heat= DT>0. Thus the equation, (Th^4 – Tc^4) Heat flows from hot to cold unless W is involved.
Wind can carry/hold warmer weather for several days; even up to 2 weeks on rare occasions (but usually only 1-3 days). Remember water vapor is stored energy through the latent heat of evaporation, a very large transport of thermal energy from the tropics. The heat capacity of the oceans, however, can span a century.
This brings us back to the Arctic: The more frequent the SSWs the more depletion of ice. Look into it, the correlation is rather strong:
“In the weeks following the stratospheric upheaval, the polar jet stream will often develop a wavy shape, with deep troughs and steep ridges that can become nearly stationary for days… Under the high-pressure ridges, warm air floods north into parts of the Arctic, often driving extreme melt, while polar air fills the low-pressure troughs, bringing wintry conditions farther south than average. The Arctic Oscillation often slips into its negative phase.” _NOAA
LOD (length of day) has increased since 2005 where the upper wind patterns switched from zonal to meridional. That also creates more sporadic jet streams with intense troughs and ridges (typically cooler cloudy weather/warm, dry weather). Concordantly, severe cold and heat are more common in a meridional as well as atmospheric blocking. The Arctic polar jet stream is split right now, being fed from northern Pacific on one side and flooding into Northern Atlantic on the other side.
Wind can carry/hold warmer
*air can carry/hold warmer…
Thanks, I tried that once and it do anything. I went back in and it works now. Human error?
CDM
A very simple and important fact about Jet Streams taught in Meteorology 101 is this:
A Jet Stream aloft is located above the region of maximum horizontal temperature gradient at the surface.
What this means is that the strongest jets are located above surface cold fronts and in the northern hemisphere, with cold air to the north of warm air, the winds in the jet stream flow from west to east (they are westerlies).
In the case of the north coast of Siberia in winter however, where the cold continental air to the south abuts against the (relatively) warm air of the Arctic Ocean to the north, we often find that an Arctic Jet develops and in this case the jet stream winds flow from east to west.
@Philip Mulholland Usually under the tropopause, correct?
So, in Summer like now, what’s causing the weird splits at the Arctic? Warmer T is hitting Siberia while cooler T is flooding the Northern Atlantic between Greenland and Europe. Odd behavior indeed.
Looks like the bots took down the link?
Tara Vargas
@ItsTaraVargas
We are now at 99 food plants burnt down or destroyed since @JoeBiden
took office.
Interactive map below!
Share! Share! Share!
https://www.zeemaps.com/locked.jsp?group=4410859
MP that is the cosmic egg. The toroidal red shift blue shift.
red shift = 1.618 phi
blue shift = 1
As a ratio of the toroidal form of an atom, a universe etc.
If you were to draw a horizontal equator, a longitudial line or pulse it would resemble an egg.
The ratio of the big half ( red shift = phi) the small narrow part ( blue shift) = 1.
Blue shift = high frequency energy
Red shift = low frequency energy
In case that image didn’t work:
So the monad the point in counterspace always projects energy in two ways red shift first
in a spiral, well a helix aka dna and then blue shift
The monad is magnetic (white light is magnetic) ..
Then Red shift Blue shift is electromagnetic
The white light is the pulse. It radiates.in a longitudinal wave aka consciousness ( God).
The Monad is the point. The ONE
Diad is the pulse in both directions. Transverse!
Triad is red shift and instantaneously blue shift completes the quad. The sine and cosine. The imaginary numbers to the real numbers.
Transverse as in orthogonal to the pulse.
MP I hope you find this as I believe you are on the right track. Hope it’s not buried too deep in the alternative discussions lol.
Actually That’s wrong the monad is not the ONE. It is an individuation of the One. It is a soul, a star, a point requiring motion to express itself.
What I meant was it is a monad a singularity. As a one. A unit of consciousness. Not the Great Monad.
Hence our counterselves, aka our shadows are 90 degrees to our left orthogonally. Hence the checkerboard in masonic symbolism. i.e Higher lower selves.
https://mobile.twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1540375968258445313
@ Zelator
Great info! As always i need to let it sink in with my thinking hat on
Was exploring in that direction since so many games and things like a Piano have Pi encoded. And even the story about ISIS and Osiris is about a 13, 14 and a missing 1. If you remove the 1 at the beginning you get 314, the first 3 digits of pi
From that i remembered a child game at school with the alphabet and the word abracadabra. Game about finding pi with the ancient gematria septenary code, what can also be applied to the bible for finding Pi, The golden ratio where god said what rivers gold can be found at least 7 times, and other number games
https://septenarygematria.com/
Recently i tried to decode the bible without a code. In a language even people who don’t understand English understand. Simply by counting the numbers. Like the 14 generations of Christ, divided by 3 x 14 from Abraham to David to Babylon to Christ. And in math 3x 14 = 3.(14)
of just counting the amount of letters in each word, like picture related
Was amazed to find so many references to 3-6-9, Pi, Phi (fibonacci sequence)
So thought, maybe they were on to something
Andy P is talking some smack as usual.
Me:
What is the typical requirement for enthalpy to increase? Work or heat.
Where have we heard that before? 1st LOT
Delta U=Q-W or +W depending on the situation.
Which case Q=Delta H
The heat applied changes the enthalpy, or in this case, the internal energy of the system.
Enthalpy covers all thermodynamic potentials. Q/W is required to change U.
I can always learn more, I never dispute that and welcome honest education. You have to understand that climate is a chaotic system and is very complex. Trying to shoehorn CO2 into every possible scenario for a political narrative is not being honest.
Andy P
heat is work dude, leave the thermodynamics alone…
Me:
1st LOT DU=Q-W
The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system.
to the system Q
by the system W
Heat and work are separated for a reason.
Both heat and work are energy.
Only the difference in energy can be applied to increasing temperature.
Heat transfer is typically from a higher temperature to a lower temperature unless work is involved. Some of that work is always lost in the process of heating.
2nd LOT Heat Engines it is impossible to extract an amount of heat from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work (work to heat the other system). Some amount of heat must be exhausted to the colder reservoir (or lost to the environment).
“Extracting heat and using it all to do work would constitute a perfect heat engine, forbidden by the second law.” _Thermodynamics
Zemansky explains that the 1st LOT identifies both work and heat as methods of energy transfer which can bring about a change in the internal energy of a system.
Methods. Transfer of energy. Neither heat nor work are part of the internal energy of the system. They are however, two specific terms.
3 – 6 – 9 and vortex math has interesting properties
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
If you figure out to make a far better solar panel cheaper and efficient and get a patent for it, you’d be rich. If so I might even buy one in the future. As it stands, I won’t. Too expensive and I am not in a Sunny state. If I lived in Texas or something I’d think it would be stupid not to have a few solar panels.
By brother-in-law is a vagabond hermit he lives in his trailer and travels. He has a home base in New Mexico, family property no one lives at in a town with so few people you know them all by name. He has no electricity input, plumbing or gas. He used solar panels but has to carefully allocate everything for them. He has a truck he travels in but has a trailer he sleeps in. A truck stop in near him so he goes there once in a while to shower and feel human.
Imagine if Tesla lived in this time era.
He is so close. He has still never said the “Greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist right?
This video is a un-demonization of CO2.
@ LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
The worst thing for solar and windmills is higher energy and resource prices. Since the solar panels and windmills are more expensive to make
And when trying to make a windmill with the energy of a windmill every new production line will be more expensive
@LKKL
Won’t tell you what or what not to do
Making a point about certain other people doesn’t have to be repeated x times tho, even if the point is correct
One of the Commie Saul Allinsky rules is “If you push a negative to much, it becomes a positive”
A litany of insults will never change anyone’s mind. Having said that, I am very guilty of spewing a litany of insults (when called for…mostly.) 😁
This Andy P is now arguing he doesn’t believe the ocean floor is warmed by geothermal.
Sometimes you sound dangerously close to supporting the GHGE.
CDM
Drop this one on him:
Submarine Volcanoes Changes Global Climate By Ocean Heating | Brian Catt
Pre-Pub paper is here:
The Variable Heating Of Oceans By Magma Throughout Ice Age Cycles Also as a Quantifiable and Credible Cause of Interglacial Warming Events
See also the work of Professor Wyss W.-S. Yim
MP, thanks for the info regarding Tesla’s 369 and Vortex Mathematics. Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I had to go out. Sounds like you are doing good work there. I made a few mistakes which I have corrected below: I have included a short video and some jpg’s to help explain what I am trying to get across:
The Toroidal, Atomistic Nature of Reality:
Erratum below I said:
“The white light is the pulse. It radiates in a longitudinal wave aka consciousness(God).
The Monad is the point. Diad is the pulse in both directions. Transverse! ( This bits wrong ! ).
Triad is red shift and instantaneously blue shift completes the quad”.
What I should have said was “that the monad is in counterspace = single i.e monad.
The diad is the pulse in both directions along the plane of inertia longitudinal plane.
This gives way to a transverse wave of first Red shift ( Triad) and almost simultaneously
Blue shift (Tetrad).The Transverse waves are the redshift blueshift NOT the pulse”.
The red shift blueshift are the two vortices of the toroidal field. Like an Hour glass.
Blue on the top and red at the bottom. Blue 1: 1.618 Red ratio.
The red shift vortex is bigger i.e 0.618 times bigger as the wavelength of red is long with low
frequency and the blue is high frequency short wave.
Man is the measure of the universe, so correspondingly, red root chakra is at the bottom of torso and blue throat chakra on top of torso.( Toroidal Field).
@ Kooks
“How does an electron receiving (absorbing) a photon then emit and change the frequency of the photon (work component)”
There’s also Doppler broadening.
Thank you. See I never would have thought that the doppler effect would have a real physical effect.
i just assumed that the Doppler effect just amounted to an illusion.
PS
In saying that it must be real because SOUND is not an illusion it is energy transferred through a medium. mmm interesting
PPS I am getting to your lapse rate comment. I am confused by it but will get there.
The Periodic table is really just a table of frequencies and spin. Tesla says everything is just vibration and frequency. The is no quantum( quantity) to quantify hence why Quantum Theory is flawed.
For example red shift proton is a diverging/radiating Right spin centrifugal vibrational frequency i.e radiation
Blue shift electron is Left turning converging vibrational frequency i.e Gravitation ( Not Gravity).
The electron and protons are always equal as they are the same thing just changing spin and frequency as they cross from one vortex to another.i.e crossing over the longitudinal pulse following the direction of the toroidal ( subtle energy) field.
The nature of the expression or neutron is in the pulse again the neutron gives the pulse its identity and the form it produces.
In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, … in frequency and energy, is known as a negative redshift, or radiation.
The opposite effect, whereby photons (seem to) gain energy when travelling into a gravitational well, is known as a gravitational blueshift. Crossing over to become an electron.
Really its just a change of spin and frequency length.
addendum:
Blue shift electron is Left turning converging CENTRIPETAL vibrational frequency i.e Gravitation ( Not Gravity).
lol@kooks
“I just had a thought… would the planetary atmospheric electrical gradient affect your calculations?”
Yeah I looked at that awhile ago and was wondering whether
I have seen that and considered if it is embedded in the calculations I have done or is it a result of the “work done” “voltage drop” per atom / molecule.
I am unable to comment on it
lol@kooks
Kooks you have to understand I am struggling to keep up with your ability put your thoughts up on the web just as fast as the neurons in your brain are travelling. LOL.
It is not an insult. Trust me on that. Probably a compliment.
Whilst I am not up to speed with where you are going I need to get clarification.
When you say “mass heat capacity” are you talking about the molar heat capacity of AIR?
“The mass heat capacity calculation shows a decreasing atmospheric heat capacity with increasing CO2 concentration” If molar heat capacity of air then yes I get it.
Robert Holmes works on the theory of something similar I recall.
However once you go to Degree’s of Freedom. Mate i am sorry I am not able to keep up at this stage.
OK I have another attempt at trying to make my ideas on the atmospheric charge of electrons a tad more clear. I am hoping that some here find the time to comment on my paper / thoughts. it is continually evolving. Tomorrow I may add something or delete something. Where is the clarity you guys are seeking please. A penny for your thoughts. Link provided to my dropbox piece
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/uqp7cf3zl8d6qleyd3i25/Faraday-Earth-Venus-V5.docx?dl=0&rlkey=1onztze9k5ph78c6dn401e1xh
All is ATUM – the Word made flesh
The Word is Sonoluminescence.
The Three Field Modalities are:
1) Dielectric: ( Neutron) Yin Is CAUSE as Rest the Source Creator – the energetic i.e Chrishna, Christ etc Brahma
2) Magnetic : (Proton)Yang Is CAUSE as Motion
3) “El”ectric (Electron) : Is Effect i.e the effect of the struggle between the two field modalities above results in = electricity ( SOUND??) God El = Sound i.e Bel ( Bell) The WORD.
The black of the Yin and Yang symbol is di-electricity and the white is Magnetism:
Magnetism radiates as radial waves along the Bloch wall of every torus field.
That is the pulse. The pulse creates the transverse red shift blue shift orthogonally to itself.
White light = Magnetism. = Movement. It is Female and is “Force and motion”
Black light Di-electricity = Rest It is Male and is “Inertia and Acceleration”.
White light therefore is Creator of the electric red and blue light.
It’s when the force and motion of magnetism dance with the inertia and acceleration of d-ielectricity then we get electricity
So di-electricity interacting with magnetism gives a wave i.e electromagnetic red shift blueshift.
So what is blue shift and red shift?
Redshift and blueshift describe how light shifts toward shorter or longer wavelengths as objects in space (such as stars or galaxies) move closer or farther away from us. … When an object moves away from us, the light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, as its wavelengths get longer.
Sine Wave Cosine Wave:
Key Difference: Sine and cosine waves are signal waveforms which are identical to each other.
The main difference between the two is that cosine wave leads the sine wave by an amount of
90 degrees. A sine wave depicts a reoccurring change or motion. … Cosine wave is similar to a
cosine function when depicted on a graph.
i.e :
Hope that helps a bit MP. Its difficult to put in words from my head, so apologies for any inaccuracies?
Cheers Z
p.s MP please keep me updated with your research, it sounds fascinating and something I would gravitate towards myself. Please post your results and questions, as I think it would benefit us all.
Cheers Z
@ Zelator
Interesting
Recently i stumbled on research in that direction from Robert E Grant, here is one of his hypothesis/claims
Cheers MP
Ughh you lost me on the maths. Theoretically that sounds true and I like it. Maybe Joe or Kooks can elaborate on the mathematical formula without making it too complex? My function is to put it across in lay mans terms, so I need to understand it myself first lol.
Actually the more I meditate on that. the more it makes sense.
It will come to me in a dream.
Here is a research paper from Robert E Grant about the wave theory of numbers
Click to access b8252f_44507aa494ec4822ae67899a6788e27d.pdf
“This Andy P is now arguing he doesn’t believe the ocean floor is warmed by geothermal.”
CDM
Drop this one on him:
Submarine Volcanoes Changes Global Climate By Ocean Heating | Brian Catt
Pre-Pub paper is here:
The Variable Heating Of Oceans By Magma Throughout Ice Age Cycles Also as a Quantifiable and Credible Cause of Interglacial Warming Events
See also the work of Professor Wyss W.-S. Yim
Thanks
The lapse rate is a very confusing subject to most lay people very much like the ideal gas law it doesn’t exist in an absolute form as little does in the atmosphere without variation. Figuring the lapse rate with the psychrometric chart and enthalpy even more of a challenge.
The problem is the clowns use lapse rate and the IGL to try and prove the GHGE in many variations and disprove they exist without GHGE. If that were the case the dry adiabatic lapse rate would not exist. They even use enthalpy as justification for the GHGE.
One day the clowns might use cooling as proof of the GHGE. 😂
@Kooks said,
“They assume once that energy is convectively removed from the surface, it will definitely make its way out to space…” If that were always true potential energy wouldn’t exist, would it?
Your mind does move fast. You’re like a 12-core processor and I’m still struggling in duo. Somehow you can break it down into easy steps still takes a while to process the data.
Was supposed to read like this, I was tired and hit enter instead of the emoji and went to bed.
“Sometimes you sound dangerously close to supporting the GHGE.” 😂
The Urban Heat Island effect is real (to what extent is the question) and is believed to spike the T from 1-5 degrees. It would change the emissivity of the surface in that area which would make the surface warmer.
That’s all I got.
At 6:28 he visits an abandoned observatory.
CDM
Drop this one on him:
Submarine Volcanoes Changes Global Climate By Ocean Heating | Brian Catt
Reminds me of a theory I heard on the difference between the British and the Germans. They are both descended from the Germanic tribes of the east, both speak a Germanic language, both are cut from the same cloth. The British ended up on an Island relatively isolated and stable, the Germans ended up in central Europe surrounded by enemies and constantly defending their territory.
Put very broadly, the isolation and stability of the British allowed them to be very liberal and individually minded. The German on the other hand, had to be fascistic, nationalist, protectionist and collectivist to preserve their nation.
So when the pressure is off, you can afford to be individually minded and liberal. When you are surrounded on all sides by enemies and your nation is in dire peril, I see authoritarian centralized fascistic states as a response.
This applies more to Authoritarian right states. Franco’s Spain is another good example.
Authoritarian left states are just spiteful mutant revolutions led by con-men.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Digesting part of your comment above…water vapor would indeed increase the molar mass (never really thought about that in such a simple form) and it carries latent heat. The process removes energy from the surface, cooling it down but increases the molar mass in the process and moves that energy to the atmosphere.
That is an astute observation.
The idiotic claim and the multitude of “peer pal papers” that are claiming CO2 increase is increasing water vapor befuddles me.
Thanks Kooks. The first link didn’t work, but I found what it was meant to link too:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-rydberg-formula-604285
Also thanks for the useful references.
It’s all really useful information and makes complete sense. It explains what I was thinking but in
greater detail and actual scientific proof rather than just my hypothetical thinking.
Most of it is in my head after studying. I have nothing written down except what I write on here lol.
So thanks for taking the time to reply. I really do enjoy reading/watching everyones contributions on here. So much valuable information, and even fun. I also try to add useful information here too if possible.
I found this book a useful read. Its about forty years old now but with a reprint in 2001 but still useful, for example he discusses in a clear concise way how the subatomic particles are in this unceasing dance of annihilation and creation.
Gary Zukav – The Dancing Wu Li Masters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters
Back Cover:
Front Cover:
And here’s a link to the book I found on Archive.org:
Gary Zukav – The Dancing Wu Li Masters:
https://archive.org/details/TheDancingWuLiMasters
and you can get a paperback or hardback version on Amazon.
Cheers Z
Oswald Spengler – Germans and Englishmen:
Love it, the faustian spirit of our teutonic ( Germanic) roots.
Inquisitiveness both personal and on a exploratory nature as in adventure.
The Saxons ( the Germans) are who we are today. The vikings changed our culture. The Anglosaxons.
The discovery and exploration of America and the rise of the British East India Company – the ruling of the waves, the exportation of our Colonial ideology. Bit like USA of today and its democratisation and capitalistic values at the point of a gun or a bomb to all corners of the world. Like it and do it our way, or we will bomb the shit out of you.
Island mentality is so prevalent. It’s Why it was so important for us to Brexit Europe ” leave us alone we don’t want centralised authority of faceless beaurocrats in suits. You can stuff your frogs legs and snails and puppy dog tails. You dirty bastards lol.
WE are civilised yet brutal when we need to be. Not pussies like our European counterparts; its in our blood that nobody pushes us around lol. Even our football hooligans are Patriotic lol.
Even to this day having been part of the EU, the European Culture disgusts the British.
With our stiff upper lip lol. Our sense of fair play against the sneaky cheating Europeans. We were never built to be European.
We like our Little island mentality against the threat from surrounding countries.
Germany was a bit like Russia today surrounded and paranoid. Hitler actually admired the British.
He never wanted a war with us. He realised we were built from the same cloth. Not like the rest of Europe, the Gauls and all that.
Just like all the other wars I’ve mentioned in previous post the Lombard Venetian Bankers shit-stirred us all to war by playing both sides. Yes the Black European Nobility those dudes!
I enjoyed that video Boomie. Cheers!
Wonderbar!
Decoding the game Chess
The ancient gematria Septenary code explains why the “pawn” is called a “Pion” in the Netherlands
https://septenarygematria.com/
Decoding the game Pool Billiard
Yes I’m not surprised you brought that up. As I said it is an old book. Not everything in it is going to be up to date. You need to use discretion in anything you read obviously. Just like you condemn Ken Wheeler’s work, it doesn’t mean you have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Looking for a negative doesn’t always mean everything else is wrong.
MP this is really interesting work. I think you are on to something encoded here.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
“No, water actually reduces the molar mass and increases the molar heat capacity (J mol-1 K-1) and mass heat capacity (J kg-1 K-1).”
So do clouds keep the surface/lower PBL warmer or do clouds keep water vapor closer to the surface or neither?
They say clouds are not insulators.
They do claim clouds block the atmospheric window.
They claim clouds also slow convection.
Actually, clouds don’t “block” the atmospheric window as much as slow the process. Clouds still radiate IR in all directions, and each cloud stack above that cloud stack will absorb the radiated IR until it eventually exits to space.
The many cloud theories are so abstract from each other it’s hard to tell which is the actual physics and which is climate clown science. Well except for NASA climate branch claiming clouds are now a heat source, that one is clown science.
“That’s why humid air is more buoyant than dry air. You’re displacing primarily N2 and O2 with H2O.”
What role does CO2 play in that equation and does the molar mass of each specific CO2 molecule (according to isotopes C12/C13/C14) make any difference? I hope I asked that right.
Decoding the Piano
My wife plays the piano, she use to play Für Elise to me all the time when we dated, no wonder I married her! 😁 It is my favorite piano composition.
You should see her type, it’s like the Flight of the Bumblebee. In her younger days she could hit 120 accurately back when PCs couldn’t handle the load and all you saw was blank screens until it all filled up. 😂
Made a presenting error
The pianist with word value 28 plays the 88 keys of a piano, and 88/28 = Pi
The pianist plays the 88 keys with 28 phalange, and 88/28 = Pi
typed 24 instead of 28 by accident
Joe got a live one OMG he is something get your popcorn this guy is a riot!
Sal Salzman
2 weeks ago
@Mike G I’ve read every major paper from Fourier’s 1825 work on planetary warming to Osman, et al, 2021 on new techniques using leaf wax isotopic analysis to determine paleoclimate temperature in the Holocene era. I can tell you today’s polar ice extent, sunspot number, solar insolation, and Keeling curve data.
You will never meet anyone in your entire life who has done as much homework on the topic as me.
Sal Salzman
Sal Salzman
2 weeks ago
@Mike G BTW, I used to run a small solar monitoring station as one of my R&D responsibilities at work, how about you? Do you have any college credits in Astrophysics? If no, perhaps both your education and work experience is so inferior to mine as to make yours seem laughably insignificant.
Sal Salzman
2 weeks ago
@Mike G We have this amazing tool, it’s called “mathematics”. It’s a shame you’ve never heard of it, maybe you should go back to school and stop showing a frightening lack of basic sophistication?
Because even in geosynchronous orbit, you still have to adjust for the Earth’s eccentricity but I’m sure you already knew that. Good thing we’ve known all about orbital ephemera for the last 3 centuries.
Sal Salzman
Sal Salzman
9 days ago
@Glass Half Full The motive is science.
I know this is difficult for people to understand if they haven’t actually studied physics, but it’s a serious problem.
So I suggest, stop thinking everything is politics and actually engage with science and technology and realize why this is a problem.
Conspiracy theories are for the ignorant.
Sal Salzman
2 days ago
@Crystal Giddens The “arbiter” is the Scientific Method. The presenter took no data, performed no experiment, indeed presupposes a conspiracy.
The point is unless you dig much, much deeper especially IF YOU WORKED WITH SOLAR DATA you’d see the absolute nonsensical premise here.
What’s your formal scientific education? Have you ever worked as a scientist?
If this isn’t your field, please don’t pretend you understand, you don’t.
Sal Salzman
2 days ago
@Crystal Giddens I’ve received a bachelor’s of science degree in applied physics, with extra course work in astrophysics electives. Then worked over 3 decades as a design engineer, R&D solar researcher and instrument designer.
Sal Salzman
1 hour ago
@Mike G You’re making a classically common mistake – models are ensembles of possible outcomes projected forwards in time.
Example: Toss 100 coins, expect ~50 heads, 50 tails. You can generate a distribution table for each possibility: 48 heads, 49 heads, 50, 51, 52, etc.
Reality will match that distribution.
But for each run of 100, there’s 2¹⁰⁰ different histories, that’s over 12 with 30 zeros after it.
You want us to get that right, without caring about the 50 heads or tails.
You need to brush up on basic science.
Sal Salzman
Sal Salzman
1 hour ago
@Mike G Now… The peer reviewed climate models ARE VERY GOOD, in fact I challenge you to find one global surface model (entire planet, and only 2 meters from the surface) that failed. Go for it, you’ll be the first person to find one, and I’ve asked a lot of people. And please, don’t give us the 200-300hPa models, or the tropics only models that all the deniers show😉
I am locked out
Looks like I am back 🙂
@ lkkk
IPCC turned all the parameter switches on max, and only arrived at 0.5 degree warming next 100 years as most probable median lol
Like co2 duration is for natural released co2 around 15 years. IPCC made an own paper claiming human co2 lasts for over 100 years, the models look 100 years in advance so that means in the model forever
Or like the amount of warming by man versus nature to estimate the co2 climate sensitivity. The models run between 90% human warming by man up to 115%. So the upper models claim there would be cooling without co2. This high tuning makes the more or less than 50% warming by man question obsolete
By using standard deviations they use medians to calculate the upper side potential over 100 years. A parabolic graph flipped like an IQ one flipped on the side. But they won’t show the bottom half since they only expect warming.
Normally 2 standard deviations is enough in science but climate science often uses 3 standard deviations. Not telling that the chance of that happening is less than 0.4%
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Thanks for that link.
CD Marshall says:
2022/06/26 at 2:57 PM
Great Piano tunes CDM
Tried to find a wolfgang Pepe Piano song, youtube banned it tho
Instead found this
Flashback to 5 years ago
Prof. Jordan Peterson Explains Pepe the Frog and Kekistand to Joe Rogan
Guys I’m ignorant on these things but is it safe to post this in public under the current climate regime?
And sent it off to Mars to cause global warming there.
Don’t tell Elon, he might just have the balls to do it.
@Philip Mulholland
Elon doesn’t like the words no or can’t.
The Army Engineers in WWll were of the same mind set. The real unspoken heroes.
Still trying to fix my WordPress link to Research Gate
Gotcha!
That was fun.
Now where was I?
Yes – The jet is located at the Tropopause.
“So, in Summer like now, what’s causing the weird splits at the Arctic? ”
In summer the land to the south in Siberia is warmer than the Arctic Ocean to the north, so the standard hemisphere situation applies and the Jet reverts to a westerly flow.
Ventusky 21Jun22 500 mb
Ventusky 21Jun22 Temperature at 2m Altitude
I don’t know why but I find those patterns so graceful and beautiful.
Hi Kooks
What is the “last line you are having problems with. Your methodoly is different to mine. nonetheless the end result is very similar.
The emissivity and the emissions to space I do not understand why you are doing this. You have gone to another level. Would love to help but I need to understand where you are.
Jopo,
Here are my 2 cents.
The issue is thermal radiant opacity in a gaseous planetary atmosphere.
The standard radiative physics model equates increased opacity with reduced surface cooling.
What I would like to see is the relationship between opacity and atmospheric pressure.
We already know that 100 mb is the standard level for a tropopause so we need an equation that shows how pressure impacts opacity. We know that low pressure Mars with its CO2 atmosphere has no greenhouse effect and that high pressure Venus does, so either the nitrogen on Venus has a massive effect or more likely it’s an issue of mean free path for radiant thermal energy leaving the surface.
Maybe this data helps
Correlation Between Opacity and Surface Water Vapor Pressure Measurements at Rio Frio, measured by weather stations at 4060 m and 4200 m elevation
http://legacy.nrao.edu/alma/memos/html-memos/alma158/memo158.html
Is ‘Euler’s Identity’ ((e^iπ)+1 = 0) really the “Most Beautiful Equation in Mathematics”?
What’s a Fractal Root you say?
It’s two identical numbers separated by one ordinal (decimal) position. In this context: Fractal Root 1 = 3.16227766 and .316227766 (both numbers are actually irrationally identical). Their product is perfectly 1.00000. We believe the Universe uses this for Fractal ”management” across vast scaling from subatomic structures to galaxy clusters.
So what does it do to this Euler Identity Equation?
Well….(1/(e^iπ))+1 = 1/α…..ALPHA, as in the ‘Mysterious’ Fine Structure Constant?! α = .00729735 (and α^-1 = 137.036). Alpha is the threshold separation of Light and Darkness in Electron Coupling (Photon Reflection versus Photon Absorption). Wait, didn’t the world-renowned Physicist Richard Feynman say that no one has been able to find the equation for this, the most enigmatic of dimensionless constants?! (Swipe for Feynman.com commentary–by Feynman himself).
Can we derive a Geometric Proof for this?
Why yes, we can: (Swipe) Embedded in a circle and it’s Diameter….10^4/e^π = 432…..A circle with circumference 432 (431.99) has a Diameter of 137.5077….which is the exact value of the Golden Angle = A°; now, let’s subtract ((φ(360°))*10^-3)^2 from A° = α^-1 where Alpha is equal to .00729735…..an astounding 8 decimal digits of accuracy.
So, is Euler’s Identity pointing to something even more beautiful than the symmetry of two related irrational numbers being ‘plugged’ back to -1 through the rather ‘opaque’ (shall we say?) Imaginary Plane/Complex Numbers or rather might it be pointing us to the beauty and simple sophistication of the very nature of Light’s separation from Darkness?
Source: https://robertedwardgrant.com/is-eulers-identity-really-the-most-beautiful-equation-in-mathematics/
I’m starting to remember why I stopped commenting as much on YouTube. I was told my comment was, “rather random equations from quantum physics” If he thinks that’s random, I’d love to see his reactions to Kook’s detailed explanation of physics. 😂
ME:
You need to start at the point of facts. (Th^4-Tc^4) heat moves from a warmer to a colder body unless work is involved.
Radiation basically follows the same rules.
Heat is simply the difference in energy, if any.
Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv.
Photon Energy=Delta E =hf
E=Energy of the photon
h=Plank’s constant (6.63×10^-34 Js)
f=frequency of the EM radiation
E is the energy of the light in Joules (J),
h is a constant which is 6.626 X 10-34 Js,
v is the frequency of the light in s-1 or waves/s (also called Hertz (Hz).
C is the speed of light.
Reply:
I know physics man. As I said, your argumentation (not the most recent one, that’s rather random equations from quantum physics) reminds of me Peter W. Langdon’s. If you are sincerely interested, I can explain to you why he is wrong. Otherwise.. as stated before, I am tired of arguing. No benefit for anyone unless one allows oneself to take a neutral, unbiased position while checking for plausibility.
ME:
Not random, the point is frequency matters.
@ CDM
Impressed by your discussion skills
With just 7 words you smashed the final slice of bread on the discussion sandwich
Thank you MP,
I have excellent teachers when and if I can keep up with them.
“I don’t know why but I find those patterns so graceful and beautiful.”
You are looking at a functioning machine that honours the beauty of its existence.
I just got banned from Twitter for saying Groomers should be slapped around 😂 while those saying the supreme court justices should be taken care of are still there. Oh well took a while. I’ve been trying to get banned for a while actually. Some Groomer must have reported me.
@ Philip Mulholland
Yea. The Euler, Pi and Alpha inter connection relation to -1, 0, and 1 is quite amazing
Apologies! It was for saying Kaepernick deserves a slap in the head. 😂 AFTER I first said groomers need a slap in the head. How dare I disparage the guy who supports violence to cops. FU Twatter.
I prefer quiet most of the time. Relative quiet anyway. Watching videos or just reading. When I have migraines even with sound off it’s like I can still hear them talk. I chased down a clock once and turned it off because I could hear the “tick tick” and it was driving me insane.
Ah, serenity comes in many forms my friend, in many forms. Enjoy.
I have to ask this, I saw a video where they offered someone a million dollars, but they had 1 minute so spend it. How could you spend that in one minute and get net profit? You can’t even make an online transaction in one minute.
@ CDM
Quickly set up an IOU contract where you promise person B the 1 million price money in return for a 1 million IOU contract
Essentials of an IOU
The principles behind an IOU are that it should be made as simple as possible and not require an extensive background in contract law. It is best, however, that it includes the following important information:
Name of the debtor.
Name of the creditor.
Amount of money in question (written out in both words and numbers).
When the debt will be repaid.
Signatures of both parties. To be a legally binding document, this is a necessity.
Signature of a witness. Some states actually require that the IOU be notarized in the presence of a witness.
Hi Kooks
I am still a little lost with the problem of the units you are concerned of?
So assuming where I think you are concerned The SB constant is a outcome of many other units. Not just Joules absorbed in a mole.
Note if a metal box 100mm cubed emitting X amount of jules we dont need to worry about it being smaller than M2.
Now speaking of the SB Law Check the formula for the SB Constant out.
2 . PI^5 . kB^4 / (15 . h^3 . C^2) = 5.6704E-08 W M-2 K-4
kB is The Gas Constant / Avogadros’s number right kB=R/Na. Hold that thought.
How many moles of air in a square meter at STP and Temp of 288K. odd question i know as one would say I meant a cubic meter. I.e Volume. Yes but who says the shape of the mole has to be spherical. It could easily be elongated cube. All of the MOLE’s in a M3 could be evenly distributed across the top face of the cube.
So using the PV=nRT at STP and 288K we get approx 42.3145 Moles of air. So how many MOLES of electrons in 42.3145 moles of air. I know you will be precise with the numbers. i am just doing this roughly as I did it earlier. There are roughly 611.82 moles of electrons. Each mole taking up a surface area of 1/611.82 M2
Now back to the SB LAW
Lets focus on some components of the SB LAW
2 * PI^5 is 612.03 and then it is multiplied by R/Na. If you can see what I see there is something in that formula that requires further attention It does appear inverted because if it was 612.03 multiplied by Avogadro’s number then it is obvious that it is electrons that is influenced by light waves. We know that anyway but it is almost spelled out for us in the SB Constant. Need more time to work out if it is hidden in there or just a big coincidence. i am starting to NOT ignore coincidences.
late here so will get at it again later. unless you guys sort it out for me first. i.e i am fishing or you found it. cheers
You ever watch Seinfeld?
“Serenity now!”
Hilarious and where I get it from.
Decoding Genesis 2-11
With the ancient gematria septenary code
https://septenarygematria.com/
Build in game of finding the golden ratio Phi in between and in or around 4 rivers
I’ll go over those tomorrow when my headache is gone hopefully, in the meantime any thoughts feel free to share.
ME from last time…
“Not random, the point is frequency matters.”
His reply:
Mighty Mo
2 hours ago (edited)
@CD Marshall Sure, not random, true. But out of context. Actually, without any context. But you are right, frequency does play a role. That’s applicable to almost anything, though 😀
I will give you a short summary of the GHG-effect and will enumerate the main points (along with some fun facts) so you can easily address any of the points you are not happy with. I will be putting quite some effort into this, so I hope you will be appreciating it with a reply. My interest is at which point I am losing you / you disagree / you think physical laws don’t match.
1: Earth receives its energy from the Sun by means of raditation. The received power is absorbed by Earth, and Earth radiates the power back to outer space.
2: In order to maintain an equilibrium (including temperature), the received and emitted time-averaged power has to be equal. This means that the power received also has to be emitted again, leading to a net-zero power flux or power balance (or enegery balance, when looking at the averages). Assuming Earth to be a black body, one can use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the resulting temperature on Earth: P=AσT^4 (The equation obviously has to be solved for T^1). This is the power absorbed as well as emitted by Earth under the given assumptions.
3: The Earth is not a black body, but has some reflectivity. The equation P=AσT^4 does not consider any Albedo, i.e. the reflectivity. An averaged value for Earth is 30% Albedo, meaning that 30% of the power is not absorbed and therefore should not be involved in above mentioned equation. Calculating Earth’s temperature with considered Albedo and the actual values of the Sun’s irradiance reaching the Earth, we get an avagerage temperature of -18°C. Nevertheless, Earth’s average temperature is 14°C or so, so 32°C higher.
3a – rethorical question: Where does this difference come from?
3b – fun fact: I read on this channel that nothing on Earth could change the received power and therefore also temperature coming from the Sun. Maybe this comment even came from you, I don’t remember. However, this statement completely disregards Albedo. Albedo can change due to various things in nature. Land use by humans is definitely also a factor, and already was at the pre-industrial age. Admittedly to a much larger extent the human activities nowadays.
4: The Sun’s radiation covers a broad spectrum. The larger portion of spectral power density travels through the atmosphere and reaches Earth’s surface. This power heat’s up the surface, which emits the power again. Since the Earth’s surface is cooler than the Sun’s, the distribution of spectral power being emitted is different. A comparably larger portion of the infrared spectrum is emitted, which generally allows resonation with specific greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2.
5: The GHG in the atmosphere absorb the energy of the infrared emissions, only to emit it again. The direction of this emission is not concentrated. Some goes to space, some back to Earth. Since not all of the absorbed power by the GHG goes to space, the cooling of Earth’s radiation is in effect weaker than otherwise.
6: The Earth cannot be seen as black body (incl. correction factor for Albedo) anymore, since the power absorption is larger than the emissions due to the lessened cooling , being related to the so-called GHG-effect. In order to attain an equilibrium again, Earth’s surface has to heat up. As soon as the Earth’s temperature rises enough to emit as much power as absorbed, an equilibrium is again reached. This necessary additional temperature can be again calculated by P=AσT^4, where P has to be corrected by the power deficit of the emissions due to the GHG. This difference in power is sometimes referred to as something like “atmospheric counterradiation” (don’t know the exact English term).
6a – fun fact #1: The “atmospheric counterradiation” is not solely linked to GHG, but can also be observed on cloudy nights vs. clear nights, the latter being usually colder, since they allow more power to escape to space. In ancient ages, this was used to cool water during night. How refreshing!
6b – fun fact #2: This principle does not at all contradict with the second law of thermodynamics (Clausius: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”). The atmosphere, being indeed colder than Earth’s surface, does not heat up the Earth. It merely reduces Earth’s cooling. Consider the following cut to observe the power flux.
Cut between Earth’s atmosphere and space: The increased emissions by Earth (owing to increased temperature due to GHG) compensate with the “atmospheric counterradiation”. From outer space, the Earth (together with it’s atmosphere) will look like a black body + Albedo correction, i.e. the GHG-effect will not appear to an outer-space observer (if the observation is simply based on a thermal image, that is.). The power emitted will be the same as the power received by solar radiation.
Edit
added 6 – fun fact #1
Upgraded the decode a bit
Reference to the squaring the circle 8/9 proxy, the pythagoras 3-4-5, tesla 3-6-9, Pi, and Phi are returning number themes in the bible
And especially the number 26 what has Pi mirrored encoded and pops up when the bible speaks about the god in the heavens
The Matrix movie also has interesting number sequences in the story line, that decode will follow
http://torahmatters.blogspot.com/2016/04/yhvh-and-number-26.html
Robert E Grant found Euler and the golden ratio Phi by squaring a 432 circumference circle and mirroring Pi
Did he just follow the hints of Genesis 2:11 in the bible?
https://robertedwardgrant.com/new-equation-to-derive-euler-number/
Hi Kooks.
Does not help when definitions are continually changing then does it.
i was just commenting on the extreme closeness of the number of moles of electrons in a cubic meter and the 2 PI ^5 prior to them being multipled by the Boltzsmann constant.
The potential significance being that the moles of electrons in a mole of air is embedded in the SB Law.
using PV = nRT and 101325 pascals and 288K we get 42.3145 Moles of air
42.3145 moles of air * 14.45946106 moles of electrons in a mole of air we get 611.84 moles of electrons in a cubic meter of AIR. Which can be spread across a square meter.
So the first part of the SB constant 2.PI^5 kB is what caught my eye. just wondering if a coincidence or something more to it.
2 x PI^5 is 612.03 0.03% difference from the 611.84 moles obtained from ideal gas Law
Dont worry to much about it. just thought if the butterflies were there you would find them.
Not sure if I have shown this before or not. It is the actual Ionization energy required to free an electron from it’s atom. Seem’s like a another coincidence. It is a foolow on from the previous stuff I put together.
I just edited the above chart if anyone has looked at it in the previous 5 minutes
Jopo,
That’s why we are losing atmosphere at the poles in case you didn’t already know that which I’m sure you probably did as your brain cells are more evolved than mine.
https://ourplnt.com/earth-atmosphere-leaking/#:~:text=Earth%E2%80%99s%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking%3A%20around%2090%20tonnes%20of,understand%20this%20escape%2C%20NASA%20launches%20rockets%20into%20space
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
@LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Thanks, huge help although I know how this is going to go.
I explain.
“You’re mistaken it’s…”
I explain.
“That’s not the science.”
I explain.
“That’s not physics.”
I explain.
“That’s not thermodynamics.”
I explain.
“That’s not quantum mechanics.”
I explain.
“Whatever electrodynamics is, that’s not it.”
I explain.
“Over 200 years ago the GHGE was discovered by…”
I explain.
“All the scientific organizations in the world agree…”
I explain.
“Show me the peer reviewed evidence in a scientific approved journal”
I explain.
“Well present a paper and win your Nobel.”
I insult the depth of stupidity they have demonstrated.
Later they come back and say “I thrashed you last time…”
Morning all. (where I am.
Kooks mate what is not right with Column “C”. I cant pick it yet.
Also Yes i now believe the electric gradient is the result of the electrons emitting energy. The atmosphere electrical gradient is similar to the pressure gradient.
Hey CD that is a great little piece you have linked to. About to head off to work. So will look at later.
That article reminds me of one where NASA talked of Venus being stripped of all H2O due to something similar. And mate you have no idea how undercooked I am whilst reading the stuff on Joe’s site. Perhaps what happens is that I may understand one grasp one component of a discussion and I go with it from. I always look forward to your writings.
I make sure I have had a few scotches under the belt before trying to absorb kooks, lol.
Jopo
Thanks, but math at this level just blows my mind.
Joe,
thoughts? If any.
Didn’t actually say what was wrong…
Good cosmology discussion.
Taylor Lorenz’s uncle, a die hard liberal is an editor of the Wayback Machine. More evidence of the left literally erasing the past.
Here is a question:
The troposphere, lower atmosphere, PBL not in thermal equilibrium.
However, the average T of the planet is 255 Kelvin as seen from space, and is the T of the planet as a whole, so is that considered in thermal equilibrium for the planet, just not for the surface?
Or is that just confusing the conservation of energy by relating to a temperature which you can, of energy in and out averaged from the planet, but not at all thermal equilibrium and simply mixing COE with TE.
So, I was going over Mo’s GHGE explanation with Kooks points and I just asked him a simple question:(I will crit his reply regardless of his answer, but the reply will help me decide if I keep it for my own logs or actually use it in a reply. I’m not going to waste my time with trolls.) Right now, I think he’s playing me, but I have an unhealthy mistrust of these idiots for a reason. I want to squeeze to see what comes out…Usually it is poison.
ME:
So I have one question,
do you think energy equilibrium of the Earth is dT>0? Think carefully on your answer.
I think I hit o on that and not 0, yep o dear. 🙄
@ CD Marshall says:
2022/06/29 at 11:59 AM
Wow CD
Just read the piece and I then went frantically looking for something I put together years ago on a local forum.
These two short video’s from NASA on Mars and on Venus. These electric forces and electric winds (lol) seem very relevant at the moment to discussion.
How did Mars lose it’s atmosphere
And the Electric Winds of Venus
[video src="https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a012200/a012208/12208_Electric_Wind_of_Venus_1_appletv.m4v" /]
Hi CD just watched the video “NASA is sending rockets into Earth’s leaky atmosphere” That was cool. I just find it amazing with science like this that MSM and worse real scientist just thumb there nose up the other influences the SUN has on earth. I.e Not just visible radiation.
hi Kooks.
Mate how do I send a direct message to you. You on twitter?
Social Media is also a means to fight the liars as long as you have a thick skin and find a troll pile on amusing. I do.
I went on Twitter to fight the lies of Obama…got banned for it.
I went back on Twitter to fight climate lies, had no problems.
Soon as I fought the political narrative on the global communist takeover I’m back to being blocked.
Well not blocked this time, locked out of my own account, which they are demanding my phone number for “reinstatement”.
One if I had a phone number, I wouldn’t give it to them and currently I don’t have a phone. Secondly, even the email I give on media sites are “burners”. Not that it matters I guess unless you take extreme precautions, we are all being spied on and Obama started collecting that data years ago.
Anyone who has time (pun intended as you read) who wants to explain the semantics to my humble personage, please do:
Mainly in thermodynamics, when to use Delta ▲/ and when to use delta δ?
For example:
1st Law of Thermodynamics ▲U=Q-W
Heat Transfer=Q/t=kA ▲T/d
Specific Heat= Q cm ▲T
However, in increasing the temperature of a body I’ve seen
δU=Q+W=m cP δT or simply dU=Q +/- W= m Cp dT
Or shorter variables
Q= mCpdT
Q=UAdT
So is it dT>0 or DT>0 🤔
*Now in these equations the dT stands for change in temperature/temperature difference with no specific indications on the time variable as is most often shown as dT.
Delta= “The Greek letter capital delta (D) Δ refers to a change in a quantity or an interval of a quantity, such as an interval of time. It is used to signify that a variable is not static and is dynamically changing from one moment to the next. Uppercase Delta Δ refers to a macro change. When dealing with velocity maybe a change in time that last from seconds, minutes or perhaps hours. ” -Physics text
delta= “The lowercase delta (d) δ refers to an “infinitesimal change.” When dealing with velocity then we are dealing with an infinitesimal change in displacement / position that take place over an “infinitesimal change in time.” An infinitesimal change in time is not seconds but perhaps a millionth, billionth, or trillionth of a second. Corresponding respectively to a microsecond (µs), nanosecond (ns), and picosecond (ps).” _More physics text
When to D and not d is the question.
Or has physics like thermodynamics, become so sloppy in the mainstream it is often used incorrectly to the point where the mainstream doesn’t know or care or perhaps because it is such a pain to do on the keyboard?
Thanks in advance.
Sloppy usage. Greek delta = d = triangle…should never use capital D for delta
Thanks Joe,
I know it’s been a long while but redoing your series, “The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” would be great doing videos even better. Those were really informative, and you have learned even more since then or perhaps a continuation of the series entitled, “The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect in Lukewarm Climate Science”, that would be a hit. 😂
-Cheers.
Hope you are doing well under the circumstances.
Come to think of it I haven’t seen Imortal600 post in a long time.
At this point I’m not sure where to even start with this guy.
So I asked him (on the subject we were discussing of the GHGE) with him stating he understood basic physics:
CD Marshall
1 day ago
@Mighty Mo
So I have one question,
do you think energy equilibrium of the Earth is dT>0? Think carefully on your answer.
Highlighted reply
Mighty Mo
Mighty Mo
19 hours ago
@CD Marshall Not sure if I understand your question correctly. By dT you mean the derivative of the temperature?
An equilibrium by definition does not allow any spatial or temporal change, so dT=0, unless further perturbations are applied.
Hi Kooks.
Yep you are correct in that i was using the elemental ionization numbers as opposed to the molecules. Thank you for the pick up
CD, I am here. been lurking. Also, when threads get this long (over 700 comments) it is impossible to look at on a tablet.
Any way, I pray all is well with you and may God bless everyone here!!
I should have posted that as ‘Immortal600’
LOL, write to my real email when you get a chance, please.
Lol, I am having trouble with this wordpress login. My messages should post as Immortal600.
Watch out everyone, The KOOK known as ‘evenminded’ is lurking here. He’s taking delight in the arguing amongst ourselves. The clown is one sick dude.
Where in the worlds did this stuff come from?
.jpg)
“The three books deal with elemental, celestial and intellectual magic.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Books_of_Occult_Philosophy
A long time ago philosophers realised that the world we live in is a microscosm of the macrocosm.
That man is the measure of the Universe.
As above so below.
As within so without.
The atomology of man is as the cosmology of the universe.
The chemistry and physics of humanity is the chemistry and physics of the universe.
To understand the universe is to understand oneself.
Our relationship is that we are a fractal of the hologram.
The laws that govern the universe govern us, and all nature, and it is “Natural Law”.
Religion was based on the concept that we are a spark of God.( soul= holy spirit breathed into us at birth).
Gnostics said we were a monad of the ONE.
Illuminists said we can BECOME GOD, as that is were we came from.
This is all the duality of nature. Black/white, right left, up down, good evil etc.
This is also the duality of the cosmos. It’s the same laws of opposites.
It is also the dance of the electromagnetic universe. White light ( magnetism)/ Black light ( di-electricity) gives birth to a hybrid son ( Electricity). = red shift Blue shift.
Leonardo da Vinci knew this as he was the Grand Master of the Illuminati. His Vitruvian man portrayed his idea of a divine connection between the human form and the universe.
So to Know Thyself is to become Illuminated. This illumination is to realise the limitation of materialism and to ascend to higher consciousness. This is where freedom lies, truth and love. Of course there is an physical manifestation of this “struggle” and that is to raise the Kundalini. The Bible is actually an encoded book that tells you how to do this. The Kabbala is the Jewish writings on this subject, and the Tree of Life is the Human energy body and its forms. It has been shrouded in secrecy as they only wanted the priests of old and the elite of today to acquire the power of enlightenment. But it is all out here if you can decipher it. This affects not only your time on earth here and now, but also where you go afterwards. Hence the Egyptians meticulous death ceremonies.
CD, If you or anyone has any other questions on this, I would be happy to try and answer them.
Incidentally the books by Agrippa, The 3 Books of Occult Philosophy are here for any students interested:
i) https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult_library/Agrippa_H_C-3_Books_Of_Occult_1.pdf
ii) https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult_library/Agrippa_H_C-3_Books_Of_Occult_2.pdf
iii) https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult_library/Agrippa_H_C-3_Books_Of_Occult_3.pdf
Pretty heavy stuff, and difficult reading if you have no background, but valuable if you take the time, and are prepared to further research.
The universe is never at rest ( stationary) therefore it is always looking to find equilibrium (rest)
Movement is this dance trying to find stability. Because the Orphic egg ( UNIVERSE) is imbalanced 1: 0.168 then this creates movement ( to find a solution to equilibrium).
Hence nothing stands still or we and the universe would cease to exist. We would exist only as a DEAD POINT.
Any potential WOULD REQUIRE A possibility of movement. If the possibility of movement didn’t exist then EVERYTHING IS DEAD.
Therefore there can only be a potential ( LIFE ) if there is an imbalance. Hence our universe and our atomology of our bodies is in constant imbalance looking for balance. This is the movement of life.
And this is Chaos. The breaking of the Orphic egg releases “322 energy” = chaos. aka Skull and Bones.
There was an old Ukrainian story about this just like the parables in the bible. It was called the Magic Egg:
https://www.worldoftales.com/European_folktales/Ukrainian_folktale_24.html#gsc.tab=0
You will have to use imagination and logic to understand this, otherwise it won’t make sense.
Ok so this one is for MP, decoding the 322 of Skull and Bones :
Skull and bones: 322 = (7)
2 eye sockets
2 ear holes
2 nostrils
1 mouth = 7 cranial orifices of the skull.
The human skull is generally considered to consist of twenty-two bones—eight cranial bones and
fourteen facial skeleton bones. In the neurocranium these are the occipital bone, two temporal
bones, two parietal bones, the sphenoid, ethmoid and frontal bones.
22/7 = 3.142 (pi)
Pi (3.14159) in philosophy is a metaphor for life and the nature of the universe, so 322 is breaking open the universe.
There is nothing inheritantly evil in this motto other than truth of the universe and how it exists i.e when broken = war, and when closed = peace. Life is War and Peace and the striving for balance.
This is were the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme comes from.
Of course the illuminati have hijacked this ancient knowledge to justify their wars and chaos.
Love, Hate, Pain, Pleasure …..
Pain the dichotomy ….pain……………………………………………………………………………………………..p
@ Zelator
Wow. Didn’t know about the skull an Pi symbolism connection
Did know about the 322 to rule the world
Committee of 300 + above that a druidic council of 13 and above that a council of 9
Well, according to a book in the clowns library
Click to access 4A92FD2FB4DAE3F773DB0B7742CF0F65_Coleman.-.CONSPIRATORS.HIERARCHY.-.THE.STORY.OF.THE.COMMITTEE.OF.300.R.pdf
Well peeps. What do you think
After a few more revisals Miles Mathis was kind enough to help me out in structuring the paper and removing superfluous crap. And being the grammerly man. Edited it. I am pretty happy with the outcome. Part of the deal is that Miles get’s to add his comments. Which is fine as he was a part of my learning process. The paper is paper is easier to read.
Miles Mathis papers on charge, heat, SB Law etc was the catalyst for me going the direction I did.
Click to access farad.pdf
Joe,
same thread different guy, might be able to help this one?
Mighty Mo
3 hours ago
@CD Marshall “dT>0 in thermodynamics is no change in temperature, delta. ” Can you please reforumulate that statement? I still do not understand what you explicitly mean by dT.
“Our planet is in energy balance it is not in thermal equilibrium.” How do you align this with Stefan–Boltzmann law? Or in other words, if the energy is balanced, how can the temperature change?
under pinned post by CDN
kOOKS might be right about this one
@ Interesting work Jopo
Think you uncovered a fundamental connection, since the math and logic behind the math works
John,
I still think that you need to adjust for the reduction in gravity for elevation in the Venus atmosphere in accordance with Newton’s Gravitational Law of Spherical Shells.
At the elevation in the Venusian atmosphere where the pressure is 1 bar, the majority of the planet’s mass is below this point, hence the reduction in gravity.
Hi Phil
I say yes that sounds like the logical approach. I guess I never did it because I did not think it would make much difference. Probably too lazy to be honest.
So I have just tried the adjustment as per your comments.
I googled and found that to adjust is as easy applying
Gravity at altitude = gravity@surface * (Radius @ surface / Radius @ Surface + radius @ altitude)^2
So by logic the higher the altitude the greater the temperature will be.
1 Bar at approx the 50KLM mark returns a temp of 342.70 Kelvin.
Given that the temperature range from various data source ranges from 339 to 346 Kelvin at 1 bar i am pretty happy with that.
Kooks,
That is a really interesting table you have there. Lots of fun things to discover, I am particularly intrigued by the inclusion of Iodine, but I digress.
OK to business. Your number 14.45946106 looks similar to a Nitrogen Molecular Mass divide by 2 Now 28.0134/2 = 14.0067 but Nitrogen is only 78.0784748% of the dry atmosphere and while your your table has light molecular fractions (e.g Methane) Oxygen has a higher molecular weight which will bump up the number.
So this is what I did:
We need to determine the species % of each of the 16 dry gasses in your table.
By that I mean we take the Volume % of each gas in the atmosphere divide it by its polyatomic species number, Methane has a polyatomic number of 5 so its species % is Volume % divided by 5 (because there are 5 atoms involved for methane).
When we sum the Species % for all 16 dry gasses the value is 1.9910693
Next we determine the total % Molecular Mass for all of the 16 dry gases and the value is 28.96599291
So 28.96599291/1.9910693 = 14.54795819
Getting closer but not spot on. So what next?
Here is the fun bit – Replace some of the nitrogen gas by a certain % of water vapour to create a wet atmosphere. Now here is where I cheat. Using the Excel What If Analysis Tool I determine the fraction of water vapour that creates your 14.45946106 value.
And the answer is 0.7204414% Water Vapour in the global atmosphere.
That was fun
Next?
Hi kooks.
mate I tried extrapolating the method I used out to Jupiter. Unfortunately it did not work.
insert (I have not yet tried it on Titan. A rocky body.)
In saying that I believe strongly that something else is involved here. Even when applying the gravity component for Venus it did not feel right. it is liek I jumped a step and hoped for the best.
Yes my method is in range of the general consensus for Venus at 1 bar.
I struggle to keep up with Miles Mathis work. He does talk of gravity being a unified field. I.e it includes charge. And I have shown that is the case just by applying the Millikan Fletcher experiment.
So I believe there are other influences involved here. I.e Jupiter is a gaseous planet. Venus is rocky planet. Density and radius (Volume) between Venus and Jupiter is not comparable. So it could be a reason why the use of using the scalar of Earths gravity (density* volume (radius) ) is not going to work.
Pressure = Mass * gravity
Mass = density * volume
gravity = G(constant) * (DV/r2)
So Pressure = density volume * G * density* volume / radius2. Is that right??
@kooks
you said “If we use the actual temperature of space (2.7255 K) and Earth’s emissivity of 0.93643 as calculated from the NASA ISCCP program, we get 292.285578309603 K”
This is whole new concept to me. Never heard of it.
You have gone to a new level. i would like to come along for the ride but mate you are leaving me behind.
@kooks 2022/07/03 at 1:08 AM
This is brilliant
Running two things at once here.
@5:07am Looking at my speculative punt at scaling molar mass down by dividing by ~2 (Happy to be shot down here). The question of why 2? is because Nitrogen and Oxygen are bi-atomic molecules and then the question of why less than 2 is because the Noble gases are mono-atomic molecules and the Argon fraction is quite significant. It follows therefore that the polyatomic gases have to larger divisors applied and so water, carbon dioxide etc. will be 3 and so on. (I hate to think what Tholins on Titan will be). If this is going in the right direction the issues for Venus with its carbon dioxide, nitrogen and concentrated sulphuric acid atmosphere are going to be complicated.
@Jopo
Thanks for your reply.
The issue of the gravity value for Venus is not going to to be straight forward.
In any analysis of this type we must first establish the assumptions.
I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that the gravity value at the solid surface of Venus has not been measured yet. Here on Earth however the value of gravity at the surface can be measured directly with exquisite precision. So we are not comparing like with like processes of determination.
For Venus the value of the planetary mass is measured externally and so includes the atmospheric mass in the summation that determines planetary surface gravity. On Earth however because we are making a surface measurement then the issue of the mass of the atmosphere which lies above the datum level and the fact of Newton’s Gravitational Law of Spherical Shells is relevant means that atmospheric mass is not being detected by our gravimeter.
Another factor of course is daily planetary rotation rate. For the Earth this rate is so high that a gravity correction needs to be applied for the latitude at which a measurement is made. (Not so for slowly rotating Venus).
In making my assessment of the gravity profile for the Venusian atmosphere I assumed that the datum gravity value at the solid surface was correct. I therefore made adjustments for distance increase away from the planetary centre of mass (which reduces g) modulated by an increase in detected planetary atmospheric mass (which increases g) as the shell below each calculation point includes more planetary mass the higher in the atmosphere the calculation is performed.
In retrospect while I am still happy that my application of Newton’s Gravitational Law of Spherical Shells is valid it is probable that the datum surface gravity value I used for Venus is wrong. Therefore your Venus gravity value which is a whole planet value of mass (including atmosphere) encompassed within a globe of solid rock means that it can be used as a good first approximation at an elevation of 50 km which is above the majority of the atmospheric mass. The distance scaling equation you used is therefore likely to be valid
Like I said it’s complicated.
Awesome summary.
Thank you.
@kooks
You said
“If we take the 387.53497297171342482296764000002 W m-2 I calculated above, and divide it by Faraday’s Constant (26.801481145363894 Ah mol-1):
387.53497297171342482296764000002 W m-2 / 26.801481145363894 Ah mol-1 = 14.459461060000000000000000000001”
Yes so simple isnt it. Do not even need to convert to a watt hour. It is already done for us.
14.459 * 26.801 = 387.5 Watts. aka 287.5 Kelvin
When the net shortwave reaches 300 w/m2 around the equator the temperature expressed by net long wave starts to drop
So above a certain threshold evaporating water has a net cooling effect
Thanks for the challenge Kooks.
I am flat out keeping up with you and Phil. That is a challenge right now..
@ Jopo
Jupiter doesn’t have a solid surface, It is a gas planet
So maybe you need to calculate from where the gas starts below the “surface”
Not sure how the state of the gas is very deep, maybe a super solid gas state at some point
Maybe you can reverse calculate how deep that super solid gas state should be
I just wanted to share this gem from the minds that created global warming. You all needed a good laugh on the 4th of July. 😂
Idiot:
“The technology behind heat-seeking missiles is based on our knowledge of the greenhouse effect. If the GHE wasn’t real, the technology wouldn’t have worked.”
Nepal,
I’m using that, hilarious.
The number 3600 is quite often used in Faraday equations
Hi Nepal,
I have not discussed a universal law. I have brought to the attention of the “astonishing” correlation.
I said “This will prove that the energy in a Mole of charged electrons to 1 volt is also the same as
the Earth’s average temperature.” and I did exactly that
I know you did not say this but others have elsewhere on another site have so I am going to throw it in just in case it does come up.
I have not ever stated that 1 electron Volt is what causes an electron to become agitated and emit photons.
So to use an analogy of 8 ball. Each ball numbered from 1 to 16 contributes to a sum of 136 units But the average of each ball is 8.5 units. That is the same as the 1electron Volt.
Science (not I) has said that 1 mole of charged up electrons requires 26.801 Amp hours of charge That is the foundation of Faradays Constant. I do not need to divide it by 3600. i could have just used the original “Faradays Constant” multiply by number of moles of electrons. No need to divide anything. There is my answer right there. I did what i did because it is the coulomb that everyone knows. Could you imagine the looks if i said that settled science tell’s us that 1eV requires 4.45E-23 Joule hours. I could legitimately do that. By the way 1.602E-19/3600 is 4.45E-23 joule hour or amp hour
In regards to a mechanism . Well just by using the numbers I have put together. it would be logiccal to assume that atoms / molecules colliding with other atoms etc are giving of heat when they discharge the energy they have acquired.
I appreciate your comments because it also helps me learn through this work.
What have I stumbled across. Is it an astonishing coincidence? Or does it require a legitimate explanation because the coincidence is just to high to ignore.
Irony is that if I went and asked a climate alarmist to show me the math and the mechanism behind there science I would not get one. probably not even from Michael E. Mann and Co.
So I have a question. When an Atom releases that pent up energy is it that energy released the same as it absorbed initially. I say it is not as I think a few others the other day here were talking about. So with the changing wavelength everytime an emission occurs then is it fair to say that all atoms discharging will eventually see the energy they released end up emititing at a I.R wavelength?
PS. that question I asked in the post above was to everyone. Just curious if that could be described as a broad overview.
Probably not relevant
Find it interesting that modern gas powered turbines are designed to run at 3600 RPM to get an optimal flow of 60 HZ tho
So 60 rounds per second to get 60 HZ
Could run 1800 rpm and get 60 HZ, but that would require twice as much copper
This NASA visualization shows how something gradually reddens as it moves away from Earth
https://dr58mx4d40r1x.cloudfront.net/117584361/high.mp4#t=0.001
The frequency shifts from high frequency wavelength ( Blue Shift) to low frequency wavelenghth ( Red Shift) as it moves away.
https://www.inverse.com/science/redshift-blueshift-definition
“When an Atom releases that pent up energy is it that energy released the same as it absorbed initially”. So I say yes it is. Energy cannot be lost only change in configuration. So the energy is the same only the configuration is different. i.e electron to proton and back again repeat rinse.
red shift = 1.618 phi = the proton
blue shift = 1 = electron
In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, … in frequency and energy, is known as a negative redshift, or radiation.
The opposite effect, whereby photons (seem to) gain energy when travelling into a gravitational well, is known as a gravitational blueshift, crossing over to become an electron.
Blue shift is gravitation, i.e CENTRIPETAL left turning spin.
Boomie. fröhlichen Unabhängigkeitstag. Mögest du die Freiheit genießen von den Fesseln, die dich binden
All good Nepal. No offense taken by me.
Is Avogadro’s Number an arbitrary value?
0.0166666666666666*3600 = 60
From the link above
Jopo
Notice how important it is to have a word that uniquely describes a concept. This is particularity important when working on the boundaries of knowledge.
In geology we are very used to this necessity and therefore often invent or indeed adopt words to aid in our descriptions. For example Fubarite describes an Archean formation found in Africa that is “F-ed up beyond all recognition”.
My favourite example of this need for a new word comes from the History of Science. Sir Isaac Newton adopted the word Gravity to describe his concept of mass attraction at a distance and the London Punch Magazine pilloried him with a new physical law that Mr Punch obviously called Levity.
I found Robert Pirsig’s description of his search for Quality very interesting and I recommend reading his book Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values.
It is nice to be able to find a single word with two distinct meanings.
Definition of arbitrary
You seem to be arbitrarily switching between definition a and definition b
I would describe your actions as capricious.
Nepal I can work this in Amp hours and stops the whole concern you have about thenhour conversion.
It is normal in my industry where I can the wattage to charge “charge up a battery” And Faradays original work was based on the hour. They only introduced coulombs because the Faraday was to cumbersome.
Next thing is that that the charge (NOT CHARGE RATE) required is quoted at a “Joule second” or a Joule hour.
Not a Joule PER Second. There is a big difference that perhaps you may have have overlooked.
There is another method I am working on now that will hopefully compliment what I have already done.
thank you Phil. i will have a look at that later.
If I had 388 Watts of energy contained in 1 mole that covers 1/42.3145 = 0.0236325609 of a M2 what is the temperature Nepal using your logic? Assuming 101325 Nm-2
T=P0.0236325609/(18.31466) =288 K
Now extrapolate out to the whole M2
T = PV/(nR)
T = 1013251/(42.31458.31466)
Oh look. Same answer. go figure.
Let’s try that again. the * button did not make its mark
If I had 388 Watts of energy contained in 1 mole that covers 1/42.3145 = 0.0236325609 of a M2 what is the temperature Nepal using your logic? Assuming 101325 Nm-2
T=P0.0236325609/(18.31466) =288 K
Now extrapolate out to the whole M2
T = PV/(nR)
T = 1013251/(42.31458.31466)
Oh look. Same answer. go figure.
Jees it still did not do it. I think you got the gist.
TEST
Nepal once a liar always a liar in my book, you are a very smart guy that is for sure, deeply impressive were the words joseph used, and i agree, but you ain’t no 16 yr old, that my son was a bold face lie to get you accepted here. now i don’t i don’t trust you in matters i don’t understand, its instinct that got me here all those years ago and instinct that keeps me here.
Plain and simple once a very smart guy blatantly lies about something so simply but important, it goes to motive, and from there smart guys tell smart lies.
Ashemann, What did Nepal do? Was that on this site?
jopo – would you please post for me, again, the basic initial equation you had which shows how the numbers work out the way that they did?
Then I will make a comment, and then we can be done with this topic imo…maybe.
Sure thing Joe. May get it here a little later. Must get going to work. I will send it through a little different. It will be in its very original format where I used the Ampere Hour to calculate astonishing coincident.
As it appears the conversion by 3600 is a sticking point.
The 3600 thing is OK Jopo…I just want to see the coincident number appearance again…to comment on it then.
@joe
The quantity of Electrons/Moles in a mole of Air = 14.4589 Moles of electrons or 8.70E24 electrons in total. Multipled by the energy
i.e 14.4589 Moles of electrons * 26.801 Amp hours = 387.52 Watts or
8.70E24 electrons * 1.602E-19 /3600 = 387.52 Watts
Snip of spread sheet below. Or if you want I can put the file in a drop box and link it.
Thanks for that Jopo.
Your table will be very useful for Venus and Titan.
@Philip Mulholland
Troll found a slight error in your graph; the degrees are flipped at the pole (should be 90°). If you decide to correct it can I have a copy for my archives, thank you good sir. His intentions were to misdirect from the source materteral.
OK that blew me away Kooks. Very impressive. I am clueless to generally most of what you posted but there are parts that I completely get. Like light speeding up the closer to the surface we get.
You said
“The speed of light isn’t even the same from one altitude to the next on Earth! How could it possibly be the same anywhere else?
Some stuff I did a little while ago. Dont know if I posted here or not. But it appears relevant to what you have just posted.
Was one of two things that could account for the variation in pressure just by knowing the speed of light or the rest mass changing from my work on other not long ago. Could not nail it though. Got close but not close enough.
So check this out. It stems from a Miles Mathis paper on “The Charge” i think it was where he said particles ramming into each other is the force or words to that effect.
What we need to know
Number of electrons in a cubic meter of air at 101325 pascals at 288K
Rest mass of an electron
C speed of Light
Electron rest mass (Kg) 9.10938E-31
No of electrons in all 42.3145 Moles of air at 101325 pascals at 288K, 3.69977E+26,
C speed of light, 299792458
E’rest mass * Electrons * C = Calculated Pressure 101037.828 Pascals
Approx 0.25% out..
Actually ignore that. the units are out.
Kg .ms-1 is not kg.ms-2 momentum is not pressure. but close.
CDM
The concentric circles shown in the diagram are the angles of solar altitude. This elevation angle is 90 degrees at the zenith in the centre of the illuminated disk and 0 degrees at the terminator round the edge.
Thanks Philip. Granted I wouldn’t know that, but this guy is an acclaimed ass clown, er I mean, scientific writer or something. He just blocked me on Twitter anyway.
New OP for you jopo in a few moments.
Pingback: Evidence of the Ontological Mathematical Singularity | Climate of Sophistry
Hi Joe,
Cheers for the kudos.
My comment status on comments relating to the OP during the Ontological series has been low. The obvious reason is that I need to grasp the science better before I move onto the next phase. I take your word for it at face value that you have done the numbers and are aghast at the continued coincidences of life. I have no reason to dispute this. You come across as a genuine honest person for whom I greatly respect. Actually I love your f’n style too.
So after seeing these continued coincidences I guess then I too would be questioning myself.
So from my perspective it is here that I say that I REFUSE to believe that I have discovered something new. It is multiplication and division. That is all it is ffs. I just cannot believe that I applied basic logic after reading a few miles mathis papers and hey bingo. I just picked the power ball numbers for 3 weeks in a row and apparently no one else has. yes just a coincidence. So yes you may well be right. There are others playing us that are in the know.
these comments of yours stood out to me.
“Because these “coincidences” are impossible, it means that they are therefore purposeful. An impossible coincidence is purposeful intent. An impossible coincidence is purpose.”
“I watched that documentary a few months ago, and I realized that the message is that the “influences”