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.