We can solve the double-slit experiment without referring to “quantum-weirdness” or probabilities with Ontological Mathematics. We do have wave-particle duality, but this is not nearly as strange as modern quantum theory makes it out to be. The solution is much closer to standard classical physics and its approach to rational explanations than it is to modern Copenhagen quantum mechanics.
Climate of Sophistry 
Pingback: Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #98 – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
I’ve heard this guy explain other things. And I appreciate his take. I listen to about seven minutes of it. And I realized the thing is 40 minutes long. So perhaps I will need to come back to it to get to his point about it.
Nonetheless. I always think it’s really interesting how someone who has already understood all the complexities comes out and makes the grand statement that this is not so complex after all! Easy for him to say. It’s like he’s doing the same exact thing that he’s criticizing others for. But somehow is an exemption from what he saying. 🥸. For, if it was really, that simple, and idiots were not sitting there, listening to people who do complex things, or describe complex things, and think they’re gods, basically he’s assuming that people will listen to his complex rhetoric, his complex explanation, that is supposedly simple, as though then, no one will think that he’s an ultra genius or something like that. I’m not really sure. But he’s assuming a certain level of intelligence. Now, what does that say about what he’s really saying? At least so far is introduction to his simple explanation of the slit phenomenon. If you think about it, he’s really saying that we should draw a line between simple and complex at “here.”, which is, where he says it should be. And he says everything on that side of the line is simple and everything on the other side of the line is complex. And the people that are on the complex side of explanations, are bad people. Or not understanding things correctly. I think it’s extremely presumptuous and actually very small minded.
It’s interesting that I found many scientists and physicists, who are super intelligent in the area of physics, quantum physics, all that stuff, and then they come out with these theories, as if it’s so simple, but, somehow they have not included themselves in the analysis that they’re putting forth to everyone else. They are not really syncing in the full spectrum as being able to think, they have narrowed them selves, so surely, in the complex world of their education that they have basically put on blinders to the actual reality of things. Seems to me. Thanks though. He does offer much food for thought, and I love how some of his lectures do kind of simplify the issue. My issue is that he seems very presumptuous, and indeed the way he goes about analyzing things, he excludes himself from the application of his proposal.
The set up of the Double slit experiment is problematic
Who new?
“Photons follow the shortest path through time.” I believe was a K comment could explain gravitational lensing.
Thanks landzek – something to think about for sure. Yes it does necessarily assume a certain level of familiarity with the concepts, but then, who actually has such familiarity outside of those who work in a physics department? Not many! I will redo parts of the last two videos to make things more clear, as I was worried about what you point out already.
Yes MP…it would be great if I could re-do these experiments but with careful consideration to the things you point out, and regarding configuration, observers, etc.
CD – very nice plot! And yes, that’s the Least Action principle, which comes about as a result of existence actually being a mental singularity, where photons experience neither time nor space in their reference frame. It is also a consequence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, because there would have to be some arbitrary inexplicable addition of time on top of the least time, which would be a very strange thorn!
@JP
Just change the highly magnetic wave metal plate with a rubber one with slits in it. That would resolve the set up problematics
If the results without camera and with close camera are reversed compared to using a metal plate, then the answer is clear
Found a book that was printed in the year 1652 and printed for Thomas Young.
The over 400 pages book is about how to perform Magick tricks with the laws of nature. Among it how to make fake gold or grow your own emerald jewels.
https://archive.org/details/naturalmagic00port/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
Around 150 years later another Thomas Young (possibly a grandson or grand grand son) invented with the help of the physics phenomena of a camera the Double split “experiment”
Great find.
This explanation could solve the double slit mystery. Feel free to correct if not fully or partly correct
Light photons don’t interact measurably with magnetism
However when converted to a photoelectric state inside a mediating material it does. So that assumes it could also do that in a photoelectric state in the open air.
Combining 2 magnetic coils, described as the Helmholtz coil creates another layer of Magick
Could use your help.
Same old same old. Will do.
Ty Postma
A blanket stops convective heat to colder air. That’s not the same thing. It’s not sending energy back.
Also, sending photons back to the surface does not mean that it can increase the surface temperature, because to increase surface temperature requires heat, as per the First Law: dU = Q + W = mCpdT
To get a positive dT, requires Q which is heat. There is no work W to worry about. However, Q, heat, can only come from a warmer body, and the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, and is in fact heated by the surface in the first place. Basic entropy considerations establish that heat is a non-reversible process, and only acts from hot to cold, which therefore means that the colder atmosphere cannot heat the warmer surface.
At the same time, the colder atmosphere is cooling the warmer surface by contact convection, and so, it cannot be said to be warming the surface while it is physically making it cooler. Cold air makes you…COLD. There is no scenario in which standing in cold air will actually make you hotter.
If you put on a cold blanket, it will definitely make you colder, until you heat it up, at which point you’ve simply created a warmer local ambient environment for yourself. The atmosphere however is a gas, is very large, and it almost always stays colder than the surface, and therefore is always cooling the surface.
No, nobody cares that the energy transition is expensive. It is that it is impossible. And it is also that it is based on this faulty physics where something cold and making the thing which it is contacting cold, is paradoxically claimed to be making the thing hotter.
The First Law of Thermodynamics with no work: How do you make something warmer?
dU = Q = mCpdT
To make something warmer, +dT, you need +Q. What is Q? It is heat. What is heat? It is the action from a warmer body onto that of a cooler body due to the difference in temperature. Heat is work. Heat is microscopic while work is macroscopic.
In a plane-parallel model, the equation for Q is
Q = sigma*(Thot4 – Tcool4)
The concept applies generally, that heat is the action from the warmer body onto the cooler body, and raises the cooler body’s temperature. It doesn’t happen in reverse, due to entropy considerations, and the frequency distribution of the energy of the hotter body relative to the cooler body, etc. That is, the hotter body contains frequency states which the cooler body lacks, and thus, it can induce the activation of higher energy frequency states into the cooler body, whereas the cooler body cannot do that to the warmer body.
Click to access t18tob.pdf
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1899ApJ…..9..237C/0000265.000.html
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhP…..4..127C/abstract
Lol @ around 7:15
I don’t know why he would downplay all that as if it’s not relevant, when it directly is and directly serves his point. He’s pretty much got my own figure on display there!
Why downplay what’s a totally valid criticism? Which agrees basically with his point? And why would he make up a new definition of the greenhouse effect and keep calling it that when it’s not what most people understand it as? He also doesn’t derive the lapse rate from math. He ends up doing more harm than good. They just HAVE to keep this expression alive of a “greenhouse effect ” for the atmosphere for some unknown reason, when a real greenhouse does not do what their atmospheric versions do. Asshats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
When the Romans wanted to expand their empire they needed to civilize the barbarians that surrounded them in order to properly integrate them into their Empire. A great tool for this was Christianity. It domesticated and unified them. Made the pirates, raiders and cattle rustlers more docile. Christianity has served us well and was at least arguably a benevolent endeavor. God is a noble Shepard to his children.
Now the people who really run the world need a new religion for us. We can’t be children of God anymore, that is too dignified. If Christianity was domestication in light, they want domestication in dark. For a cruel God. They want us to become true soulless human cattle who are here only to serve them.
They need us to believe our emissions from our prosperity and power are killing the planet, and dangerous. So they may lower our prosperity and power. So that we are weak enough to be under their control.
This is just one of the main corner stones of this new dark domestication dysgenics operation. The new religion. The other cornerstones are in place as well. Changing us into the perfect human cattle.
That is the reason the “greenhouse effect” must be upheld. It is integral dogma.
Superb. That’s why I’m so pro-health in my book, because we really have to take care of ourselves now…there’s no system out there to protect us anymore, and the system as it is is now aiming to dysgenically destroy us. Only those of sound mind, who take responsibility for their own knowledge and health, who see through all the fake crap and avoid it, who put real food into their bodies and real knowledge into their minds, will survive.
Although Christians are loosely unified, as with any other religion, none of them will survive because none of them fully address diet and health like I do in Illuminism. Noone will survive who doesn’t have a multi-generational system in place to ensure that their descendants continue to eat real uncontaminated food, and continue to comprehend the nature of the battle for survival.
This is the time for survival of the fittest. Most everyone is going to die, through multigenerational dysgenics, which will eventually sterilize everyone. The only people who will survive will be like the Amish and such.
Who can follow this confused mumbo jumbo? They make sound way more complicated than it really is. I swear it is just to obfuscate and bewilder folk.
“I swear it is just to obfuscate and bewilder folk.”
That IS of course what it is, and has always been, YES.
@boomie789
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Heat is Work and Work is Heat
Flanders & Swann – ‘First And Second Law’
That’s Entropy man!
NOAA
“The ocean receives most of its heat along the equator, where incoming solar radiation is about double that received at the poles.”
Er, double? I’d say a whole lot more than that. Mostly all warmth at the poles is tropical driven energy.
Using that stupid fake energy budget again.
Exactly. They literally believe that the poles are heated as much as the equator.
Can something colder make something warmer?
As it turns out yes, it actually can.
“If”.
Nocturnal radiative inversions supercool dry low turbulent nights it can create an absolute stable atmosphere the next day which limits cloud seeding allowing more insolation to reach the surface locally.
How’s that for irony?
A guy who worked at a weather station actually confirmed this is typically true but not always, but he agreed it was a pattern.
Yes and it’s not the climate science ghe bs.
@CDM 2023/05/28 at 7:39 PM
The difference is not as great as you might think.
My estimate is that the equator receives 2.45 times as much solar energy as the poles.
Based on this diagram of Insolation (W/m^2) versus Month
Annual Equator = 417.9
Annual Pole = 170.8
(It’s all about area under the curve).
The yearly averaged flux isn’t what explains any climate or physics though.
OK Joe, Help me out.
What is the product of Intensity (MT^-3) multiplied by Time (T) with dimensions MT^-2 called?
Is this not Power Duration (ML^2T^-2) per unit area?
Clearly energy is being collected over the surface and at the poles in summer the days are 24 hours long.
Yes and the real-time flux in the summer is what drives the summer climate at the poles, and that’s not the same thing as the annual average. The annual global average schemes are of course what makes the sun too feeble to create the climate. Annual local fluxes suffer the same problem.
“Yes and it’s not the climate science ghe bs.”
No, not even close. It’s the Sun.
@Joe
“Yes and the real-time flux in the summer is what drives the summer climate at the poles, and that’s not the same thing as the annual average.”
No problem with this, but the graph I posted is still significant for meteorology.
One thing I learned from working in geoscience is the need to create new names for new concepts. I propose to call the product Power Duration per unit area the Impact (MT^-2) of the radiation. 🙂
Hi C.O.S
Sorry to dumb this down. Trying to get my head around coincidences in our solar system and Keplers stuff. I am sure this is accepted science but I am struggling to understand the energy difference. I really would appreciate some help. I have found that the force of gravity between Sun and Earth – Gc Ms Me / r2 for earth has exactly the same energy required for the centripetal force of earth. I.e F=V^2. Me / radius sun_earth.
This to me appears to be an imbalance. If the sun gravity force is responsible for force to ensure earths orbital velocity where is the force that also keeps Earth pinned to it’s orbit. . What am i missing here?
On a side note and new to me I found to determine the orbital velocity of any planet in our solar system all we need to know is the square root of Gravitational constant * mass of the Sun / distance from sun to planet.
For clarity with my confusion. It is that a force perpendicular to suns gravitational attraction force are equal in force yet Earth in this maintaining it distance?
Jopo – you’re doing intro university-level astronomy, which is very cool! 🙂
” It is that a force perpendicular to suns gravitational attraction force are equal in force yet Earth in this maintaining it distance?”
Not perpendicular – but opposite. The centripetal force is opposite the Sun’s gravity. Yes they should be equal and opposite, which is what allows for orbit. Same idea with a satellite – have to get it going fast enough in a circle so that the centripetal force balances gravity.
Reminds me of the famous Newton model.
Precisely!
Thank you for the response Joe. I now have another problem now. What is the opposing vector to the gravitational pull of the sun? Not one I have read. I have always read that the force or net force is at right angles to the sun. The description of opposing force conjours up images of an magnetic opposition or a charge opposition. If you have time to help out that would be great. I totally get it if you do not as i am intruding and dumbing this down.
@ Jopo
Like your what if, and can there also be other forces at play mindset.
This new discovered anomaly might help your quest in figuring things out
Earth has a new moon – or at least a ‘quasi-moon’, a new study has revealed.
A quasi-moon is a space rock that circles the Earth, but is gravitationally bound by the sun.
This quasi-moon, called 2023 FW13, was discovered by experts using the Pan-STARRS telescope at the top of the Haleakala volcano in Hawaii, and is one of a handful of known quasi-moons.
Experts think the ancient cosmic companion has been in Earth’s vicinity since 100 BC and will keep circling our planet for at least another 1,500 years, until AD 3700.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12136243/Earth-new-MOON-scientists-reveal-stay-1-500-years.html
Joe,
have you ever read this?
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/37299764/no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
Yes I have CD – it was posted originally on PSI by one of the PSI founders alongside myself, Pierre Latour.
Interesting case, that.
Pierre was a big PSI supporter, anti-GHE and all that. Hence the article.
But, after a trip to Israel to visit religious sites, Pierre came back, and wrote another article where he said that cold objects could indeed make warmer objects warmer still. PSI published it because Pierre was at that time one of the lead directors. Others at PSI asked me to review it, and so I did. The article was full of multiple double & triple negative word-play games, and even double-negative mathematical equations where there were so many negative/positive inversions to work though, it was very complex. Well, I worked them all out, and found that he was simply making it look very complex to perform the same thing that the basic flat-Earth GHE does. There is a post or two on this blog about it, and I think that PSI still has it somewhere.
“I have always read that the force or net force is at right angles to the sun.”
The velocity is…the direction of travel of the planet is…more or less.
“The description of opposing force conjours up images of an magnetic opposition or a charge opposition.”
It’s two different forces. One gravitational, the other centripetal.
‘But, after a trip to Israel to visit religious sites, Pierre…’
You sure it was still Pierre.
That really makes you wonder.
Thanks. What if only one photon is fired and no more. In that case the composite life history doesn’t include many photons (coming later and) interfering but rather one and only one. So how can there be interference in that one-photon scenario?
Great question. There isn’t. As I showed in that one slide, you just get a single point detection. You need enough signal, number of photons, to build up the pattern.
But my understanding is that even with one photon which leads to a single point on the detector, that point is slightly deflected (not a straight shot). But that deflection can’t really be visually appreciated until additonal photons fill in the bands. But that the first photon is still sitting in a band, upon retrospect, so had to have been “intefered with” somehow. What about a point particle producing a wave in the medium (ether) in which it is traveling? a boat traveling through water upon approaching 2 nearby “slits” will only travel through one of them but the wake of the water will travel through both and deflect the next boat coming through
Yes, with a single photon, there is only a single point-detection, which tells you nothing. And a single photon can still diffract through either slit, which is where the photon particle-wave will bend around the corner of the slit, and hence can still go somewhere else than simply a straight line to the screen. But whether the photon was only diffracted, or was diffracted plus self-interfered, you couldn’t distinguish that with only a single point. I would have to say that the photon would only diffract and would end up somewhere in the diffraction band, which is not a quantum effect, but there would be no self-interference.
Yes that is true for water with water as the ether. However, in ontological mathematics, all that exists is the circling, or the photon. We would have to ask what is the ontological reality of this ether which exists separately from the photon? The photon we can explain, and has a foundation as the circling, as base energy. What is this other thing, the ether? What is it made out of? Why does it exist? Etc. Actually, in ontological mathematics, light is itself the ether, so to speak.
So: If one photon goes through, it will still diffract through one of the slits, hence placing it somewhere in the diffraction band, and gives a single point detection.
If you have two photons go through – actually, this could be experimented with – if you have more than one go through, but they go through one at a time, if you make them all go through a single slit, on the left say, then you would still only get the diffraction band patter. But if you alternate the photons one at a time through either slit, then they can now also interfere as well as diffract. You only get diffraction with a single slit. You need two slits for interference. But if all the photons only go through one slit, they should still only give diffraction, but if you set them up to go through both slits, then you also get interference. This would be a good way to test things!
According to several science sources one photon can create an interference pattern. And according to the in the below picture source there were 2 detections at 2 different locations after one photon shot
Quite mind boggling. Until you realize that there are also electrons at play resulting from the experiment set up, and those electrons get detected like photons do on the detection screen
What they mean is “one photon at a time” can still create an interference pattern, but there is still a large number of photons needed to build up the pattern.
@ JP
In the last reference in the picture above electrons are fired at the double slit instead of photons. And that results in around the same pattern on the detection screen.
instead of bouncing to all over the place there are in between bands where it doesn’t “bounces” to
How would you explain that without magnetic interference, where the electrons traveling in the same direction as the plate magnetic bands/highways gets sucked up by the field and hence no detection pattern behind that?
Yes I did discuss that in the video. The explanation is identical to that for photons. Electrons are fundamental particles, just like photons, and that makes them a type of circling. Electrons obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle such that it seems that they must be aware of every single other electron in existence, and others have remarked that it seems that only a single electron field actually exists. They must be timeless/spaceless particles too, and hence, interfere with each other via the singularity, interacting across space and time.
@ JP
Agree with your notion that if it isn’t A it must be B, since the proposed C, D, E, and F hypothesizes are not ontological
Nice.
And yes, note that there are myriad interpretation of quantum behaviour, whereas this seems to resolve them all at a stroke, and in a simple way.
*many interpretations of quantum behaviour which are mutually exclusive at that…and they have no idea which one to go with
It is possible to determine whether self interference occurred from a single photon, because the double slit diffraction has exact zeroes. If the photon happens to hit at an exact zero of the double slit pattern, then you know there was only one slit. If it hits somewhere that is not a zero for the single slit or double slit pattern, then it is inconclusive and you need more photons.
Get 10,000 people to do the experiment on their own with a single photon. Add up those results.
The Kahn Academy has a video on single slit interference (link below)
But it doesn’t really address the one photon idea.
But it does look like the very first photon cannot be interfered with because it leads the wavefront and nothing can catch up with it
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/light-waves/interference-of-light-waves/v/single-slit-interference
Also, on the aether idea. If reality is a mental construct – which is what we ontological mathematicians believe to be so – then are there any analogs to lean on to better understand? There is an interesting article by B Whitworth on virtual reality (VR) and reality [link below]. It seems to me that VR (simulation) has many similarities to the real-non-simulated reality of ontological mathematics. When you put on the VR goggles you see a 3-D world but it is all just light waves causing an illusion of materialism. Can you imagine how realistic VR will be hundreds/thousands of years from now? In VR, like in the most simple video game (e.g. Pong), there is no real motion but rather things appear then disappear (in a slightly different position) giving the illusion of motion – like a movie reel that is only still photos shown at a high enough rate that our eyes/brains are fooled into thinking there is real motion. Or the old hand-drawn animated flip card decks is another example. If this is real-reality, then let’s revisit the aether idea. A VR, like a simple video game, is written in code. A simple example is kicking a video game soccer ball. The game is coded in such a manner that it will accommodate any direction you choose to kick the ball. If you choose northwest direction to kick, the code will activate in the northwest direction and the video ball will travel in that direction. This means there is a “sphere” of (coding) possibilities around the ball, only one direction of which gets actualized/collapsed after your decision is made as to what direction you want to kick the ball. The programming, by accommodating for any direction selection along the sphere, is kind of like a probability sphere but it is real, not imaginary. I would propose for purpose of discussion that this constitutes the “aether.” When photons go through double slits, the coding spheres surrounding one photon may impact the coding sphere of a closely neighboring photon thereby affecting the code and impacting the outcome leading to a deflection of a photon – and an interference pattern. So the aether would not be material but would be real and analogous to the VR coding situation. Of course VR is created by an intelligent being, whereas real-reality emerges on its own and creates, rather than is created by, intelligent beings.
Click to access 1110.3307.pdf
If something as simple as a photon can stump modern science what makes them think they have ever seen the oldest galaxies in the universe?
Which makes me think of the parts of space that has nothing in it or “voids”. At least they haven’t been able to detect anything. Which in itself leads to more questions.
And it’s a little creepy.
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/dn12546-2_519.jpg?width=900
Well as I’ve been explaining CD – they’ve been conditioned TO BE stumped, permanently, by believing that things can be two things at once, etc. Cognitive dissonance is the height of intellectualism! Can you believe that!? The highest form of intellectualism is now cognitive dissonance. This is exactly why we have flat-Earth climate change.
@Robert – yes, single slit is just diffraction. We still need to drill down to individual photons and figure out why they do what they do, why it is a particle-wave, etc.
And right, existence in and of itself, base reality, is a mental singularity. Hence, all perception of extension and material is a product of a simulation, of coordinate gridding, and the like. Existence is the ultimate MMPORG! And it basically is a VR simulation…except it’s base-reality real.
But there is simply no need to conjecture an ether. There is a mental singularity composed of all frequencies of light, and the mathematical operations that light can do. If we really want to save the idea of ether, then it is simply light itself.
BTW I am putting all this into a book form now.
ok thanks. but if you superimpose all the photons on top of one another, if everything happens at once for a photon (and there is no time or space), then how do they interfere – what is the mechanism? if there’s no medium/aether then are the photons banging into each other like billiard balls? thanks
They’re interfering in the mental singularity, with each other. The photon is itself a particle with a wave trajectory – the wave part is what does the interference, diffraction, etc.
Ok, but what is that wave “made of”? I realize it is immaterial/mental but what is doing the waving? Is it part of the circling, part of the monad, etc? Thanks
It’s made of numbers. Numbers are doing the waving. The monad is composed of circlings which are thoughts which are movement in numbers.
This guy’s final conclusion appears to agree with you JP.
Ah very nice.
😏
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Evenminded is on Twatter pushing his plate narrative.
I replied.
CD Marshall
@MarshallCd
·
57s
Fourier “In effect, if all the levels of the air of which the atmosphere is formed were to retain their density and transparency, and lose only their mobility, this mass of air thus becoming solid…” that’s why you did the plates and it’s disingenuous.
Exactly. Make fun of it for continuing for years that the atmosphere is a solid plate.
lmk if I made any mistakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
“The solar constant (GSC) measures the amount of energy received by a given area one astronomical unit away from the Sun. More specifically, it is a flux density measuring mean solar electromagnetic radiation (total solar irradiance) per unit area. It is measured on a surface perpendicular to the rays, one astronomical unit (au) from the Sun (roughly the distance from the Sun to the Earth).
The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m2) at solar maximum.”
“The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m2 in early January to 1.321 kW/m2 in early July) due to the Earth’s varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km2), the power is 1.730×1017 W (or 173,000 terawatts),[9] plus or minus 3.5% (half the approximately 6.9% annual range). The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year the solar constant varies much less than the solar irradiance measured at the top of the atmosphere. This is because the solar constant is evaluated at a fixed distance of 1 Astronomical Unit (au) while the solar irradiance will be affected by the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Its distance to the Sun varies annually between 147.1·106 km at perihelion and 152.1·106 km at aphelion. In addition, several long term (tens to hundreds of millennia) cycles of subtle variation in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich cycles) affect the solar irradiance and insolation (but not the solar constant).
The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE2), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE2). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m2). The amount reaching the Earth’s surface (as insolation) is further reduced by atmospheric attenuation, which varies. At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth’s surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location’s latitude, and the time of day.”
Interjecting here to ask what you think the point of that 340w/m^2 average is? What do they mean by “as insolation”? 340w/m^2 is enough energy to get a perfect blackbody to 5.12C or 41F. Just above freezing. Then they take out the roughly 30% of the flux that is blocked by the atmosphere from that 340w/m^2 like it is our new solar constant? Why are we modeling cold sunshine on a flat surface now?
This is the foundation they set to begin in Climate physics. This is the foundation they need to set because they have to have “Greenhouse gasses” raise the surface temperature of the planet. If you don’t start out your model this way, and instead keep the earth spherical, and the solar constant what it actually is, you will plainly understand that the sun is the main driver of the climate.
https://youtu.be/h4TIRKEDNKE
Here is a good example of how a student is first introduced to the concept of the “Greenhouse effect”. Energy in and energy out have to always be the same, that is a physical law. in the simplest terms possible what the “greenhouse effect” is explained to be is energy trapped in the system raising the temperature in the trapped system. Also, he uses a common misappropriation of the term “heat”. Heat=Hot-cold.
Very decent 👌
The energy in and out are the same, but inside the system ,”the heat is trapped” raising the temperature inside the system(the surface) higher than what their new solar constant can generate.
This simply does not happen anywhere in our universe. Not only are we using a flat earth with cold sunshine model now, which doesn’t exist in this universe either, and can’t. We are using a model that creates energy out of no where. Incredible.
If you are a normal person you are probably thinking about your car on a hot day, it is definitely hotter in there than the outside, no doubt about it. Just like in a real greenhouse. But, you could have probably close to 1000w/m^2 blasting down on that car, not 340w/m^2. 1000w/m^2 can heat a perfect blackbody to 91.27C or 196F. So no wonder a car sitting in the sun can burn you if you touch it. Or the blacktop road burning your bare feet if you don’t wear shoes. The physics argued in “the greenhouse effect” model argue the inside of your car would actually generate more energy and reach a temperature higher than the maximum forcing potential available from the sun.
If you are following so far I will tell you what is is like when you expose this to someone who teaches it or promotes it. If you expose this to a climatologist. After you already got them to admit this model is nonsense. They admit it isn’t the real model. The real models are in the computer algorithms. This is just a teaching tool for the concept of the model. That is why they call it “The Greenhouse Effect” in the first place. If you don’t believe me here is some video evidence.
Here are some examples of the “Greenhouse effect” model.
The “Greenhouse Effect” doesn’t exist.
Ah, there was more! Very good stuff!
It really is just how you work out flat Earth for the climate!
O and I time stamp the Lindzen video to @7:10
Your updated graph is very easy to follow.
Great job on that, Boomie.
evenminded
@evenminded121
·
13h
Open to what? There is no convective heat transfer to space. We can add convective heat transfer to plate models as well. Not that you or your ilk would understand how.
CD Marshall
@MarshallCd
·
47m
Because the atmosphere is too cold at the TOA not because it’s impossible, that energy is converted to potential energy and thus in all physics that’s cooling.
Derp.
Even the Moon convects.
Heavy physics stuff.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014JA020732
Canada forest fire footage
https://streamable.com/bf2pxp
I’m assuming that was for firewalling or whatever they call it – starting a fire to stop a fire.
Sneak peak for you guys – I’ll do a release video OP soon:
Also thought about that. Controlled fires so it creates a barrier area what is already burned
The result seems a very uncontrollable fire tho
GHE-believing climate terrorists.
Can’t be sudden lightning strikes as some claim. Since lightening strikes need clouds and where the fires visibly start are no or almost no clouds
Definitely done by climate alarmists who actually just want to destroy all life on Earth which explains the cognitive dissonance of why they do this:
https://gab.com/dutchjim/posts/110510346911349157
I’ve been plastering this all over the “climate change” forest fire propaganda which has raised liked fire on Elon’s WEF CEO Twitter controlled site.
#JustStopArson
Philip Mullholand,
If you are bumping about.
Agree or disagree..?
“The change in meridional and zonal wind patterns every 30 years is caused by several factors including fluctuations in solar and geomagnetic activity, which in turn can induce changes in the neutral density together with changes in the zonal directed winds.”
And what does “sudden warmings” have to do with anything? Besides the “global warming” propaganda of warming the troposphere it does not change the patterns at all. It is a direct 30-year change so what geomagnetic or solar changes follows that?
Anyone can respond, I find it odd that “climate science” avoids these patterns and simply will not cover them (off hand mentions in climate science material, only). More of an astrophysicist, geophysics and solar physicist subject I suppose.
You said geomagnetic. That is a no no straight away when discussing with alarmist.
For them to outright ignore the magnetic influence on climate or temperature is just nuts.
ad;gkjha;ogdhas;odgh
@CDM
“I find it odd that “climate science” avoids these patterns and simply will not cover them”
I totally agree, there are many examples that clearly show the action of geophysics on climate. These geophysical data demonstrate that there are major forcings other than the so-called greenhouse gases.
e.g. Sudden variations in the delta LOD rotation of the solid Earth.
e.g. The University of Oulu Cosmic Ray measurements with their links to Boron isotope variations in the atmosphere.
Tree-rings reveal two strong solar proton events in 7176 and 5259 BCE
Click to access s41467-022-28804-9.pdf
Dont know how I got to the forum link where a chap named Chan Rasjid was claiming that squareroot of (1/4.pi.G.Eo) * by 10^6 * eV (MeV) = Kb. Boltzmanns constant. However he had problems getting the units to match up.
I broke it down to squareroot of (G gravitational constant / Ke Coulombs constant) * MeV.
The units match. I got Joules. The numbers are exact with an accuracy down to the number of decimals in the Gravitational constant. Pretty bloody hard to argue against that I reckon..
Naturally you then rearrange other formulas that include the Boltzmann Constant and it is not a good look for those that argue about the magnetic and electrical aspect of our climate is not electric or magnetic.
Instead of PV=nRT
how about when R = sqrt(G/Ke) *MeV * Na
So here it is in a nutshell.
It all comes down to what are the units for the Ampere as the Ampere NOW appears to be it is own unit. Back in my early days at TAFE in the 80s as a sparky the Ampere was represented as a force. I.e Newton/metre
Ke = N.m2.C-2 or H.m-1
H being Henry
Seriously this is not just a coincidence.
I wrote to Chan Rasjid who did kindly engage. His view was that he did not get the units to match so he never pursued this. Shame. I reckon he nailed it.
Sqrt ( 6.6743E-11/8987551787.36817) 10^6 1.60217663402699E-19 = 1.3806784E-23 Joules
Sorry i did not include the Chan Rasjid link.
Click to access 1310.0228v1.pdf
Thanks Philip,
interesting paper.
Found a quite cool site with 3d gif visualizations of different electromagnetic field configurations
https://cddemo.szialab.org/
Showed picture shows oscillation of an electric field in combination of oscillation of a magnetic field
https://cddemo.szialab.org/
oh wait, here is the gif
Those are very good! It shows the helical path of light too.
@ JP
Would you describe it as separate fields or different properties that can be triggered in 1 field?
I can only describe it as I did in the Illuminism book – they’re a paired field, where one induces the other. A static electrical field can exist, as well as a magnetic one, but, as soon as one moves, it creates the other. A changing e or m field induces the other m or e, and you get light. It is the manifestation of a single equation with two components.
In the start of creation. What started first. A moving magnetic field or a moving electric field?
It is a chicken and egg questions. Would be great if there is a logical answer tho
They started together at the same time I guess, because they’re part of a single equation, Eulers Formula.
Say MP, think we can forge gold with the instructions from that document you posted? I could use some funding for experiments I want to do.
I read the gold making part and that is basically about gold layer the outer layer and get the weight and volume right.
Because a king can put his fake made crown in water and conclude it is fake
@Jopo
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew
http://emc2fails.com/
Hi Phil, Yes I have had a look at his site. tbh a bit over my head. i just grab the bits I can relate too. His initial paper is not in there. he could not get the D.A to match. Yet I could.
@Jopo
I am going to look into this a bit more and study D.A. wrt EM.
Cheers Phil,
Looking forward to feedback
Here is a Chan Rasjid youtube video about why Einstein’s Relativity, E=mc2 is Wrong
My apologies guys
I just noticed I had incorrectly assigned Joules.sec to the electronvolt instead of just joules. The result returned is now 1.3806E-23 Watts not joules. Still a big coincidence.
Chan Rasjid referred to this vid. Where a case is made that e=mc2 is overused and is only valid within a certain framework
If the inverse square law didn’t exist could life exist on this planet? On any planet? What a hellfire that would be.
@ Jopo
Maybe the the Boltzmann constant is figured out/derived from the logic you provide in the first place?
Fun new discovery. And a high probability to be related to the double slit experiment Magick, based on sub things I figured out
https://www.snexplores.org/article/laser-lightning-rod#:~:text=Like%20a%20high%2Dtech%20hammer,work%20in%20real%2Dworld%20storms.
This guy on twitter is mental. How many of these things exist?
Defending the climate bible, “energy budget”.
…a few days later of debate.
@MarshallCd
You don’t average fluxes over 10 years for what purpose? A fake narrative.
Well, if you’re measuring energy, it would be:
energy-in = energy-out, 910-980(A) Joules = 227.5-245(4A) Joules. But flux-in does NOT equal flux-out, 960 W/m^2 ≠ 240 W/m^2.
@Quack_Detector
You average fluxes over 10 years to get a picture of Earth’s energy budget. Both figures you have are wrong.
Notice how you have utterly failed to argue against the greenhouse effect. You just keep tripping over yourself with irrelevancies. I’m not responding until you do so.
@MarshallCd
Now you are desperate.
It’s a religion with you. I get it.
340 is averaging the total solar constant over the entire planet instead of averaging energy over the entire planet which would be 960 in and out take or give a few.
@Quack_Detector
Because it’s FLUX, not energy. 🤦♂️
@MarshallCd
The flux is 1361.
@Quack_Detector
Now find the average over Earth’s surface. 1361/4 = ???
Really tough problem, I know.
@MarshallCd
I did and it’s not 4 it’s 2. 4 is the ratio of surface area of a sphere to its cross section half a sphere is illuminated.
I’ll
go
slower
AVERAGE TOA Solar flux is 1300-1400 W/m^2
.3 albedo = Equatorial Zenith SURFACE at angle of solar altitude (90°): 910-980 W/m^2 total.
Now add in the ratio of surface area of a half of a sphere to its cross section:
FΘ (1-a)/2= 455-490 W/m^2
The exhaust is the ratio of surface area of the entire globe:
FΘ (1-a)/4 =227.5 W/m^2 – 245 W/m^2
Same total energy not the same flux.
Calculate average T correctly you get 288.027 Kelvin
@Quack_Detector
It doesn’t matter which part is illuminated because we’re averaging over the entire surface.
You’re literally denying that the Earth is a sphere. 🤣
@MarshallCd
Around we go with climate clown circular logic.
You can average energy but if you average the flux you eliminate the full potential of solar heating which at the tropics hits an average of 30 Celsius and fuels the most powerful atmospheric cell on planet Earth.
Derp.
Jopo
(1/4.pi.G.Eo)
What is Eo ?
Hello Phil
Eo – “The vacuum permittivity ε0 (also called permittivity of free space or the electric constant) ”
From that I was able to get shorten that to Sqrt (G/K)
K being coulombs constant. I never realised that K= c2*10^-7
Anyway as I mentioned earlier
” I had incorrectly assigned Joules.sec to the electronvolt instead of just joules. The result returned is now 1.3806E-23 Watts not joules. Still a big coincidence.”
Still would like your feedback as to whether I have got it right.
Cheers. Of to work now
@Jopo
Where c2 is the speed of light squared (L^2.T^-2).
29979245829979245810^-7 = 8987551787 = K = 8.99 x 10^9 Newton.metre^2/Coulomb
Where a Coulomb is 6.24 × 10^18 electrons/Second and so is an instantaneous rate T^-1
Now Newton.metre^2/Coulomb has Dimensions MLT^-2 . L^2 /T^-2
Hence Coulomb’s Constant K has Dimensions M.L^3
Following slowly.
29979245829979245810
WordPress…
299,792,458 times 299,792,458 times 10^-7
@Jopo
Am I OK so far?
Now for the next bit:
Ohm’s Law : Amps times Volts equals Watts
Now Watts is Power or Flux (Rate of doing Work) and has Dimensions M.L^2.T^-3
Amps is electron flux in Coulombs (electrons/second) and so has Dimensions T^-1
Therefore by Ohm’s Law Volts has Dimensions M.L^2.T^-2 which is Energy (Joules).
@Jopo
ε0 = 8.854 × 10^-12 Square Coulombs per Newton Square Metre
You are here:
Sqrt ( 6.6743E-11/8987551787.36817) 10^6 1.60217663402699E-19 = 1.3806784E-23 Joules/Kevin
I parse this as:
(((G/Ke)^0.5)10^6ε) = Kb Joules/Kelvin
Can you parse this for me?
(1/4.pi.G.Eo)
Is it SQRT (1/(4.pi.G.Eo) ) or SQRT(0.25.pi.G.Eo)
Sigh, WordPress…
It really does not like * star for x multiply
@Jopo
This really is something else.
You are defining the Boltzmann Constant Kb in terms of the speed of light c, the Gravitational Constant G and the reciprocal of the number of electrons per second that make up a flow of 1 ampere.
#Wow!
Hi Phil
I guess Yes. that is what I have come up with.
I am at work. So I can provide my workings out later tonight if you have a query with my workings out.
Summary of my breakdown is this.
sqrt (G/K) *MeV
The sqrt of (G/K) resolved to be sqrt(1/s2) = 1/s
1/s * (eV) kg.m^2/s-2 = Watts. That is what I finally got.
With regards to Chans original work it is here at this link. Click to access https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0228v1.pdf
Chans work was SQRT (1/(4.pi.G.Eo) ) * MeV
I can do that tonight if required. I am sure that came out athe same.
Sorry .
Chans work was SQRT (1/(4.pi.G.Eo) ) * MeV * 10^6
Rookie question:
What is s?
“As in The sqrt of (G/K) resolved to be sqrt(1/s^2) = 1/s”
sorry Phil. “s” is the second. (t)
OK ish…
“how about when R = sqrt(G/Ke) *MeV * Na”
Is Na Avogadro’s Number?
Phil. Yes. Na is Avagadros number
The state of “science”
Mike8Wallace
@Mike8Wallace
PCA is a set of correlation exercises, boosted by cool jargon such as EOFs (empirical orthogonal functions). Or consider this as part of my PCR exercise.
The short and long term solar radiation leads to short and long term impacts on climate. It’s studied, but not shared.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fy_joxfXgAcJDso?format=png&name=900×900
Jopo,
If you’re AI the human race is done.
🤣🤣🤣
Mate. hardly.
I post so much rubbish here I get embarrassed most of the time. I am just reaching out for someone to guide me.
Hi Phil
Here are my workings for Sqrt (G/K) and the sqrt(4.pi.Eo.G)
Sqrt (G/K) * MeV
Sqrt (4.pi.Eo.G) * MeV
@Jopo
Thanks.
I am going outside, I may be some time 😉
Here is a handy unit converter. It is in Dutch, but most units are written the same in English
Fun coincidence is that 1 Kelvin = 1.3806E-23 Joules = 1.3806E-23 watt-second
https://www.unitsconverters.com/nl/Kelvin-Naar-Joule/Unittounit-3514-3452
1.0579 Kelvin matches exactly the Boltzmann constant times joules
Quite interesting that the Q what is used for defining heat in thermodynamics is used as defining electric load i9n PV modeling
“I post so much rubbish here I get embarrassed most of the time.”
Jopo,
If you think that you’re bad, you should see what I come up with 😉
Let’s start with Boltzmann constant Kb. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Boltzmann constant is a fundamental constant of physics and has a defined value (Kb) of 1.380649 × 10^-23 joule per kelvin (K). In that case why is this fundamental constant defined to be a specific value (tuning) rather than measured to be a specific value?
Now take your formula that determines Kb from
1. The speed of light c which is 2.99792458E+08 m/s;
2. The Gravitational Constant G which is (6.6743 ± 0.00015) × 10^-11;
3. The electron charge ε = 1.6021766340E-19 which is the reciprocal of 6.2415091E+18, the number of electrons per second in Coulomb that make up a current flow of 1 ampere A.
Of these three physical constants c the speed of light is a measurement that is not subject to tuning, the Gravitational Constant G is a measured property, and so apparently is the ampere A.
Now the numerical value of Kb derived from your equation using the above numbers is 1.381012E-23 and not the official value of 1.380649E-23 so where is the rub? Of the three measured values the least accurate is likely to be C = 1/ε = 6.2415091E+18, the number of electrons per second, so here is the value of C that produces a formula match with Kb to 6 significant figures: C = 6.2416423E+18 electrons/second which means that ε = 1.6021424361E-19
OK? Next let us look at Dimensions.
I am going to stick firmly with Ohm’s Law: Amps times Volts equals Watts.
Now if Coulombs C (current flow) is measured in Electrons per second I have a problem with dimensioning this as M.T^-1
Why? Because both the Proton and the Electron have the same (but opposite) electric charge but have considerably different Mass.
If Coulombs are Electrons per Second then this is an instantaneous particle count that is independent of Mass, in the same way that Avogadro’s Number is a particle count that is independent of Molecular Mass. So if electric current has dimensions T^-1 it follows from Ohm’s Law that Volts are Energy M.L^2.T^-2 Joules (and Volts are not L^2.T^-2 whatever that is…)
Note this now explains your earlier posted reduction of sqrt(G/K) to 1/Seconds.
“OK? Next let us look at Dimensions.”
“I am going to stick firmly with Ohm’s Law: Amps times Volts equals Watts.”
I am really intersted in your approach. i like the idea of electrons flowing or electrons changing energy levels.
However my approach to eressolve the issue of intergrating amperage into the units was different as mentioned earlier.
Knowing that watts is kg.m2.s-3 and also using what I was told about the action of current resulted in a force per meter when I was a teenager I then just set about working the other units for voltage and resistance.
P=V.I
V=P/I. kg.m.s-3/kg.m.s-2.m-1 = m.s-1
Knowing this I was able to test this on other facets of ohms law.
I.e R=V/I. m.s-1/kg.m.s-2.m-1 = m.s.kg-1
So R is m.s.kg-1
Now one of the simple ways to test my method was to test this with P=V2/R (and other formulas as well).
therefore P=V2/R is m2.s-2/m.s.kg-1 = m.kg.s3. or kg.m.s-3
Now I have literally back of paper here at work (working back tonight). LOL not at the moment. So if I am wrong I will correct later when at home as I have on the laptop. I literally created a spread sheet calculator for units
i.e Kg.m.s-3/m.s-1 spits out the result. it is pretty cool
This worked for many other formulas as well that incorporated amperage.
I am keen to see you work this out using the electron flow analogy. I was not able to do that.
Sorry Phil.
The above is wrong. At home now and checked.
These are the correct units and they resolve (for me)
Volts is m^2.s^-1
Resistance is kg^-1.m^2.s
Amperage is N/m or kg.m.s^-2.m^-1 or Kg.s^-2
Watts kg.m.s^-3
i.e
@Jopo
Thanks. Correction noted and adopted.
Hi Phil
I am guessing you are in the U.K
Generally no one chats during the working week in my at home time unless late at night.
So this claim “1c” rise in T is it actually measured energy they have allotted to “heat’ to spike the “alarming heat” claim. I’m starting to think the whole process is Boslsheviks. Anomalies are not heat indicators and satellites have no way of determining what is energy and what an increase in “heat”. On a cloudy sky They can’t measure anything from the surface.
Where did you get that from CD. Would love to learn a bit more about that.
UK based with a night owl sleep pattern 🙂
You keen on the Ashes?
Aussie
Only to put on my blackcurrant bushes 😉
lol Phil. OK. Will stay clear of that then. Looks like a cracker last day.
@Jopo
I am now here:
I – Amps: MT^-2
V- Volts: L^2T^-1
I x V – Watts: ML^2T^-3
(Time for a break).
Can do a variant of the double slit experiment by shooting the laser light on a single hair, that gives a similar diffraction pattern
When adding smoke it can clearly be seen that the diffraction starts exactly after hitting the hair. No wavy pattern or collapse later on. Just separate straight lines coming from a single point
Note that hair has metal particles in it, and that it has excellent static electric properties
I found my head was going around in circles because of silly errors. I would waste hours because of stupidity. Then I set about creating a spreadsheet. Started of simple.
Then I was able to build a bigger spreadsheet encompassing more formulas
Works a treat if the inputs are correct
I have Eo, Mu, G, Henry, Planck etc. etc. it is pretty cool. Gives you confidence when doing stuff like this. If I did not do this my head would have exploded.
Nice. The only way to cope with this is with a spreadsheet.
I did it without it. Then I did not. Then I did. Then I did not. Was driving me crazy. Then built the spreadsheet and this helped immensely with the confidence.
Had to contact my daughter to get the square root component correct on the units as that was also screwing me up as well. I wqs overcomplicating the simple math.
Simple stuff can do that to me.
It appears you may get the same result I did??
Pro Tip:
In Excel for SQRT I always use ( )^0.5
This is why I over egg the pudding with brackets. It looks messy but Excel keeps track of brackets for you and this helps to keep everything in order.
My use of M Mass L Length and T Time is also something I recommend for Dimensions but YMMV 🙂
Here is the experiment setup and a close up view from above, right after the laser hits the hair
Funny what a punctuation error can do to a sentence.
So this claim “1c” rise in T is it actually measured energy they have allotted to “heat’ to spike the “alarming heat” claim?
@Jopo
Making some more progress following your correction of my earlier mistake.
From Electric Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field
1. Electric Field has Units Newton/Coulomb : MLT^-2 /MT^-1 this resolves to LT^-1
2. Electric Field has Units Volts/metre : L^2T^-1 /L this resolves to LT^-1
Now the Speed of Light c has Dimensions LT^-1
Hmm.
100-year ocean cycles predicted to influence climate.
Something the honest ones already knew.
PCO_Pacific Centennial Oscillation
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/25/17/jcli-d-11-00421.1.xml
@Phil
Nice.
Will have a look at that later tonight CD
A 2 beam laser spits out 3 beams when you feed it extra electric juice
@Jopo
Upthread you posted this:
“K being coulombs constant. I never realised that K= c2*10^-7”
I looked at this and found that numerically Coulomb’s Constant Ke is 8.988 x 10^9
Next the speed of light c is 299,792,458 m/s and so c squared is 8.987551787368E+16 therefore c^2 times 10^-7 is ballpark numerically equal to Ke (as you stated).
The issue however is Dimensions. The speed of light squared has Dimensions L^2T^-2 while Ke is measured in Newton Square Metre per Square Coulomb.
and has resolved Dimensions M^-1L^3
So in terms of Dimensions c squared is not equivalent to Ke.
Game over? Well there is the issue of the scaling factor of 10^-7
What Dimensions might this number have that would permit the relationship to be valid?
Here is a possible example:
L^2T^-2 . M^-1LT^2 -> M^-1L^3
Now from our pick and mix smorgasbord Resistance has Dimensions M^-1L^2T and so if we divide Resistance by the speed of light LT^-1 we get:
Dimensions M^-1L^2T . L^-1T -> M^-1LT^2 as required.
So what we now have in Dimensions is c squared times Resistance/c -> Ke
Now I have already established that Electric Field has Dimensions LT^-1
so is there a relationship between Electric Field Resistance and Coulomb’s Constant?
Hello Phil,
WOW. Two things have happened here in your comments above.
Point#1. I was not thorough in explaining how I derived “K= c^2 . 10^-7”.
That is explained below after Point #2 on how that was derived. 10^-7 carried with it units kg^-1.m.S^-2 or M^-1LT^2.
It is the Vacuum of permeability. (Mu Nought) which is embedded in The electric constant Eo
Point#2. Your persistence and out of the box thinking to extract the following is impressive. Your description of a resistive force on the electric field pretty well describes Vacuum of permeability in my opinion.
You said
“so if we divide Resistance by the speed of light LT^-1 we get:
Dimensions M^-1L^2T . L^-1T -> M^-1LT^2 as required.”
That would describe the Vacuum of permeability. (mu nought)
Back to Point #1.
Thank you for still going through this.
I must apologise as I was not clear when I said “K= c210^-7”
I should have said that K= c210^-7 is derived from after parsing the following.
mu nought * c^2.
The 4.pi is cancelled out as shown below and then the 10^-7 is accompanied with N/A^2. Which is M^-1LT^2
@Jopo
No apology needed.
What I hope this demonstrates is the incredible power of Dimensional Analysis.
Thank you for also using M L T & K, it really helps 😉
lol. I struggle with MLT. Forever associating M with meter. Cannot help it. It just happens.
Has been a great experience for me actually.
&Unsure about the definition for the coulomb.
This thought process occurred to me today.
The coulomb which is charge is known as the A.s ampere.second. Or as you alluded to 6.24E18 electrons dancing for one second.
But electrons will only dance if there is a potential difference (voltage).
So the Coulomb should be Ampere.second.Volt
Coincidently the Joule is C.V
So after all of the analysis I think you returned the same result I did?
@MP
The Attribute of Light Science Still Can’t Explain
@ PM
Nice summery on the unsolved paradox. And interesting at first glance not related input on the photoelectric effect and light polarization.
Can’t proceed with doing a full deduction with actual new technology as proof, since that would interfere with JP’s project to much
Can say that when there is deception the first assumption is wrong. Like when the magician assistant goes laying in a box and the magician cuts the box in half
Good video Philip. My previous videos and book answer it!
Off topic but I wrote this in 2010. AI has evolved this much in 13 years.
“What would happen if the writer was eventually weeded out of the writing and all stories were made to sound the same, like a cookie cutter voice? If that were ever to happen then the voice of a single writer would no longer exist and books would be produced like a factory: Stamped with a company name and not an author.
Writers would then all become employees under a company like a job and work 8-5. No royalties, no advances, but maybe a good dental plan. Consumers would no longer look for a favorite author they would just look for a favorite publishing company. The individual would now be obsolete and expendable. Older authors would probably be replaced by younger authors and quality replaced by quantity.
Eventually they would create an A.I. that could now replace the writers entirely and no one would notice because all writing would be the same anyway .”
Hollywood writers are on strike, and nobody cares. They know AI will replace them and they are trying to control it.
From an engineer.
Any takers?
Click to access 1911.10605v2.pdf
It’s measuring increased emission from CO2: TO SPACE!
That means it is increased cooling!
We are awash in cognitive dissonance. They measure increased emission TO SPACE, which can only mean extra cooling of the Earth given a fixed input, but then think that this proves an extra RGHE at the surface of Earth! Ugh!
Thanks Joe,
he was being evasive in his posts, so it was hard to get a lock down on what he was trying to articulate or demonstrate.
TOA “radiative forcing” is simply forcing energy into different wavelengths.
I’m curious if this was the original findings of the term hijacked by a political agenda and how long ago it was changed. Sometime after Feynman climate science was gradually taken over by the prevalent nonsense we see today.
These things can be subtle.
I remember when CO2 was treated as “soot” in the 70s I was a child, but I still remember the meme…vaguely and the “ice age cometh” hysteria.
The Leidenfrost effect
Including Zuber’s constant
and Bromley’s equation.
All new to me.
@ Philip Mulholland
Sounds like you’re trying to heat thing up on this subject. 😁
I have more.
Now there is this:
Quantum Physicist PROVES How We CREATE Our Own Reality Through the QUANTUM Field | Amit Goswami, PhD
Did the CERN’s Large Hadron Collider alert hostile aliens to our existence?
Good night and sweet dreams.
Just curious is any of this accurate?
luto’s atmosphere has recently completely collapsed
Neptune is experiencing unprecedented aurora activity
Uranus super storm is now going the opposite direction
Saturn cyclical storm returned 11/12 years early
Jupiter is warming and its radio frequency has changed
Mars is undergoing record earthquakes and has a bi-hemisphere dust storm that appears to be stationary
Venus wind speed has increased 30%
*Pluto’s atmosphere has recently completely collapsed.
*If accurate, what is happening in our solar system?
If accurate, would be interstellar medium and solar activity changes.
@CDM
Source please
Some one else who is on the same page:
What If The Universe Is Math?
Just a comment I read about the solar system tweaking out as an example of no it’s not the GHGE.
https://gab.com/BeachMilk/posts/110762491140156179
These people are sick.