tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5891230366917547701..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Gravity, the Greenhouse Effect and Surface TemperatureEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12935794273585688922017-06-01T13:51:59.750-04:002017-06-01T13:51:59.750-04:00In a universe expanding from a single expansion of...In a universe expanding from a single expansion of energy similar to an explosion accelerating space and the later condensing mass, to the speed of light, would we experience time as moving extremely slow? Making it possible that we live inside an explosion, displayed in extremely hot masses of glowing spheres that is surrounded by smaller, colder bodies sucked into the drag of spiralling motion. I imagine the curvature of space being the boundary of the expanding force of explosion. Like a bubble pushing masses and creating wells of curved space by elastic deformation from the counterforce of inertia. That would make things hotter according to size and density, from just friction. <br /><br />Overflow of energy distributing to potentials in lower density masses by transfer that minimize losses by distribution of heat to a network of bounded bodies. Bounded by potentials, repelling by independent emission of heat flow. Like grabbing the balls of a newtonian cradle, you know the bouncing metalballs in a row hung on a frame. Grabbing them with one hand, letting them bounce to repell, and attract towards the center of individual and collective center of mass, by the acceleration in the same direction side by side. Creating wells of increasing depth towards the increasing resistance of larger mass and heat. On the outside of an expanding sphere originating in big bang. Or several BB:s. What would the location of initial expansion look like? Wouldn´t it be places where no light is observed? Where mass didn´t have time to condense? Like black holes?<br /><br />Anyway, I like to watch galaxies and think that: it looks very similar to fireworks. Then fireworks from multiple explosions it is, originating in black holes. Dark matter can suck unicorn balls. <br /><br />Assumptions and fantasies are fun, the universe stimulates such activities with the night sky. Any assumption is as good as the next. Maybe not the piss-pant-effect or the greenhouse. <br /><br />But thermodynamics is real. It hits the bullseye of the universe, centering everything around an independent flow of heat. Use it for important stuff, and ride unicorns to galaxies creating fireworks with backradiation of naked women at the speed of light. But I have a strong feeling that heat would bring more solutions in cosmology as well, compared to unicorns. But not compared to backradiated fountains of naked women at the speed of light, obviously. That must always be the preferred solution to anything, if available.<br /><br />The greenhouse discussion turned into something else, apparently. It never is a good thing to discuss with yourself, constantly nodding and making sounds of approval to the excellent ideas that bounce around inside the skull unquestioned. Just look at the madness above. I blame it on the blanket-people, you distract me with your unicorns and feathers.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30148941920083478562017-06-01T13:28:32.025-04:002017-06-01T13:28:32.025-04:008c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...
&quo...8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...<br /><br />"And then I was so happy with that that I gathered up what remained on the cutting room floor and turned that into something I can live with.<br /><br />http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Quantum_Cosmology.pdf"<br /><br />I would be very interested in the possible conclusions you could make from a combination of your approach to quantized cosmology, and the network of thermal flow connecting stellar bodies by unique individual flows by pairs.<br /><br />Instead of mass causing gravity and organization of matter into hierarchies of structured networks, how about connecting them with thin threads of heat like a spider web? With each body being firmly locked by its emissive power as a repulsive force, and just hanging to surrounding masses by a fraction of heat turned into work. Just enough to hang on by the fingertips in a spiralling weightless motion. Travelling collectively in the same direction at the speed of light, from the acceleration of big bang being established before mass condensed into a state where relativity is the difference in acceleration. Potentials from small variations of relative speed in the same direction. The only way to explain the fact that mass has the energy of c^2.<br /><br />Heat flow, incoming and outgoing, both have the speed c, combined to c^2.<br /><br />We are standing on a surface potential accelerated by opposing flows with the sum c^2.<br /><br />I wonder what mass would look like at that speed. Maybe like it moves very slowly? Like it moves so slowly that we hardly can detect it with our senses? Like a rock? Imagine standing on a rock, expanding at a rate of c^2 from heat flow. Wouldn´t the experience be that time moves so slowly that everything seems to not move at all? Wouldn´t that make it possible that the universe is only a few seconds old, observed from the outside?lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18534489031537811822017-06-01T10:41:17.640-04:002017-06-01T10:41:17.640-04:00continued...
The link describes the flawed physic...continued...<br /><br />The link describes the flawed physics in a theory of heating yourself by pissing your pants in wintertime. Using the same logic, the heat from the piss is absorbed again in your skin, heating up new piss, creating a pisspant-effect by retaining piss-heat by absorption from the now frozen stiff pants, which create circulation of hot piss by increasing absorption in the growing yellow ice-cap on your pants. Re-emitting the absorbed heat into your smelly skin, from the melting piss-ice on the inside of your pants. Or... NO? Really? The increased absorption of heat in the growing piss-ice-cap is not a way to retain heat in circulation of piss-heat? <br /><br />Then how can increasing absorption by increasing the amount of dry ice in already cool air, make the surface hotter? <br /><br />The decreased emission of piss-heat to the surroundings from yellow ice, wouldn´t that be a "forcing"? Which leads to higher surface temps by less emitted heat? Same thing? No? Another unique principle of physics, only seen in the greenhouse?<br /><br />Your greenhouse smells of urin now by the way. You should seriously clean it.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11592827400992211342017-06-01T10:40:33.957-04:002017-06-01T10:40:33.957-04:00OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said.....OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...<br />"But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model"<br /><br />Hey, thanks! That is a good link to point at when arguing for unphysical theories in the greenhouse.<br /><br />The third equation, big problem. Look at the + that adds flux densities of two surfaces to a combined flux density of only one m^2. Sure it has the appearance of physics, but it is seriously stupid. Like I have been saying, pull out the feathers and focus on the physics. Then you can learn that a balance equation for net transfer of heat, weighs two flows against each other to find the Heat(net) transferred to one m^2, by subtraction.<br /><br />At least you should understand that emissive power is instantaneous and not something that can be stacked on top of each other. That equation shows how you should not do it. It adds one flux of x/m^2 to another flux from another m^2. That gives an averaged flux of them both, emitted from 2m^2. Divide by two and you get closer to understanding the S-B equation. Net is balance. Net is never found by stacking separate flows. When you add another m^2 to the first, you still have two m^2. You have to mix them. And tadaa, you find the revelation of the holy Boltzmann angel of the heat paradise, with a bottle of scotch.<br /><br />Adding two different flux densities from two surfaces using an equation for net-transfer, inevitably leads to d.i.l.u.t.i.o.n.<br /><br />Second fantasy of unicorns:<br /><br />You cannot average heat flow into only half the surface, over the whole surface. Emissive power is not energy, averaging over the whole surface must be in form of kWh, not instantaneous W/s/m^2.<br /><br />The average energy over time, which passes through the system, is not equal to the power of flowing concentrated heat at constant rate on only half the area that cools by longwave radiation.<br /><br />You use a theory where insolation is set at -40C, no wonder you are confused. I use solar radiation at 105C. You see the difference?<br /><br />Try putting a glas of water in the freezer, it is irradiated by thermal radiation below zero, from all directions. Then try heating it with a heat gun on one side, with a temperature of heat flow at a 100C. Are they equal?<br /><br />Logic. Try it.<br /><br />Next: They show that the atmosphere temperature can magically be doubled. Guess why?<br /><br />All directions? Of course!<br /><br />An atmosphere apparently behaves differently from other bodies. The emissive power of a temperature from a surface, is cloned by unicorns into glowing blankets where 240W suddenly doubles to 480W/m^2. Because: ALL DIRECTIONS! And raped unicorns...<br /><br />Don´t believe me? Find an example of that principle outside of climate science. Good places to look are: physics of thermodynamics from the 19th century. Those theories are complete, if you don´t find it there, it is wrong.<br />lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70219942096714665652017-06-01T09:15:58.675-04:002017-06-01T09:15:58.675-04:00Blogger Kevin O'Neill said...
LIT "gh-the...Blogger Kevin O'Neill said...<br />LIT "gh-theory is crap"<br /><br />"Yes, your Nobel Prize awaits."<br /><br />What exactly was the intent behind this statement. <br /><br />My point of view is that I can´t get a nobel-prize for showing how 19th century physics smash the Greenhouse to pieces, and at the same time showing how we need to pay attention to scientific methods used, and how they are interpreted to extreme expressions like environmental activism. Still with the polar bears. March for science, pffft... Puppets.<br /><br /><br />"Or you're a moron."<br /><br />I always let others decide that. You got one vote. I don´t value your opinion very highly. I have a guinea pig, it gets two votes. Everyday. Because it is smart enough to not believe stupid shit like the greenhouse heated by dry ice. <br /><br /><br />"Or a very boring Poe."<br /><br />Naah, come on?<br /><br />A bit funny, you have agree... <br /><br />Michael Mann & Cook, there you have a couple of boring nazis that should have been smacked into the tiled wall immediately at birth. Those two are truly unpleasant, with obvious lack of moral foundation combined with a lacking empaty for humans. To not forget their infinite incompetense, only matched by the other observed infinite, the vacuum of space.<br /><br />"I'd bet on options 2 or 3. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't yet won the Nobel? Or perhaps you can just admit to being a Dunning-Kruger afflicted nutjob. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?"<br /><br />I don´t make any claims, that makes it hard to get the prize.<br /><br />I just use logic and what is known.<br /><br />Yeah, there comes the Dunning-Kruger sex-doll you have been hiding behind your back. You should try to stop waving that disgusting thing around just because you feel stupid for beeing fooled into a fairy tale of photon-blankets used by lepricorns to rape unicorns by distracting them with unphysical backradiation. This is callad a pride-festival. Where you run around with a bunch of coloured feathers stuck up your ass, piss-drunk, screaming:<br /><br />Take me seriously! I´m a normal human!<br /><br />Yeah, what a misery. Poor man, gay and drunk with ass-feathers, screaming about nobel-prizes, doing personal attacks in a scientific discussion while getting more ass-feathers. I think the whole concept of "seriousness" would reach an entirely new level in your life if you just pull out the feathers, shut up, and focus on the science. The physics of heat and temperature.<br /><br />Who you take seriously, is not likely representative for anyone with their breathing holes above sea-level. Who else takes me seriously is a measure of intellect on their behalf, from my point of view. I don´t care, I just want truth. If no-one else wants it, have it your way. Keep on with the feathers. <br /><br />lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23852160850206696292017-06-01T08:34:26.511-04:002017-06-01T08:34:26.511-04:00continued...
Before we throw Boltzmann and Planck...continued...<br /><br />Before we throw Boltzmann and Planck out the window and instead use the least probable cause of high surface temp, I would like to investigate every single suggestion of the entire population of earth. Because your theory, that damp, cold air and dry ice is a logical and sane model explaining temperature distribution, is the least probable solution to the problem. Even farts are more likely as a cause. I would choose booze and being drunk as an even more probable model, combine it with farts and we have a winner. <br /><br />Anything but an explanation of how absorption decrease the cooling by trapping heat, when it is well known that absorption is what speeds up cooling. <br /><br />Are you serious when you say that I "ditch albedo to make the math work out"?<br /><br />Do you not understand that I am ditching the suspected problems in ill-defined physical principles of the greenhouse? I minimalize the system to observed geometry, including a realistic model of heating from one-sided irradiation in depth of a spherical non-interacting cavity with shells. This was to find baseline in optimized flow from minimal constraints, and finite differences from average energy distribution. The potential in surface temperature and insolation sets the limits for maximized flow. Earth has a temperature very close to that calculation. There is no albedo causing changes, there is no retained heat or accumulation of heat. It is free flow, full power, albedo is caused by heat, heat absorbing molecules drop temperatures by adding mass to a limited constant heat flow. <br /><br />I don´t ditch anything important, just the stuff you put in there to compensate for not doing logical analysis based on known physical laws and principles. I throw out the shit that is not found in the theories from the 1800:s.<br /><br />All necessary parts are there, just get rid of the retarded stuff. Like analogies with blankets showing how misunderstanding of physics is expressed by analogies where the blanket decrease heat loss by preventing air, and included GHG:s, to absorb heat.<br /><br />I think you people should stick together and maybe tattoo "blanket-people" on your foreheads. Then you can support each other in your misery, and find each other easily.<br /><br />Also, we would know more easily what people that should not be allowed to do science. You almost fucked everything up because of lacking logic and ignorance of physics. To the point where you try to slow evolution of civilization which is entirely a product of fossil fuels and fission.<br /><br />You really go all the way, forcing by politics everyone to follow your lead to misery, prosecuting opponents, constantly attacking character and avoiding scientific discussion. Claiming immoral basis for people that just don´t agree with you. Writing papers about consensus and "denialism", trying to fake a scientific appearance when lining up postulated correlations to mental problems, pseudoscience, creationism and religion. You even try to appear scientific when you throw crap around you talking shit about your opponents to avoid the scientific problems which skeptics point out.<br /><br /><br /><br />Everyone living on earth, just needs to go to the window and take a look everyday. Then think a minute about the weather and temperature. <br /><br />There is not a single person in this world that can claim that they observe never before seen temperatures or anything that doesn´t fit the average for this season. Not anywhere in the world. Only anomaly graphs from climate science and hopelessly defective predictions about the future effects, show something that a weak mind would feel as a threat that is cause for alarm.<br /><br />Nothing is happening! How long do you think people will listen to your bullshit when their eyes tell them that it seems stable as f**k.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37071017491852025692017-06-01T08:33:57.316-04:002017-06-01T08:33:57.316-04:00Blogger Jim Eager said...
"Ditch accounting f...Blogger Jim Eager said...<br />"Ditch accounting for planetary albedo so your maths will work out. Now that's a novel approach that I haven't seen before. Yes, the shit is adding up."<br /><br />Wow, what a comment. You mean that being conservative and only include the basic principles in the theory of thermal radiation and heat transfer, is worse than using both emissivity and grabbing the concept of albedo from optics?<br /><br />Albedo mostly refer to the human eye and the receptors of the "visible spectrum". Albedo is not a factor used in models for temperature. Actually, it should not be used at all when analyzing heat flow. <br /><br />How can you complain on my approach, which minimalize unknown factors by keeping to proven and applied principles of unquestioned 100% consensus science?<br /><br />When you subtract a large amount of heat by claiming that your eyes is a trustworthy instrument to approximate thermal energy to a fraction which is excluded, before even starting to do the calculation?<br /><br />On top of that, then you come whining about there is not enough solar heat to sustain the surface temperature. I feel how veins pop in my eyeballs from the frustration of watching defect brains doing physics. Of course you don´t have enough heat from the sun, you f***ing threw it away before we got a chance to find the internal relationships. Based on that you think snow and random shit should reduce heat by exactly what? 30%<br /><br />Because you think humans eyes are a good instrument for collection of data, then just throw in a number that makes the greenhouse work by flows of heat from the coldest part of the system, the atmosphere.<br /><br />lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29036908134352661252017-06-01T07:24:56.757-04:002017-06-01T07:24:56.757-04:00continued:
With no other source of energy than r...continued:<br /><br /><br />With no other source of energy than radiated heat, observed universally and independent of earth and humans, I have good reasons to claim that gravity is a force which is supplied with energy from the flow of heat, and that heat flow intensity should logically account for the force.<br /><br />Those are obvious relations, and it is the most conservative and minimalistic conclusions that can be made. Not a single assumption about hidden energies or super-complicated mechanics of hypothesized forces and processes that can´t be measured.<br /><br />If using only what we know, and take that information literally, we gain further understanding than any of the hyped theories based on assumptions hanging by a thread from a phantasy.<br /><br />Gravity and heat are closely related. Gravity is never independently observed without heat. And then it is actually not observed, only assumed from the effects on heat radiation. Which means that gravity depends on temperature, which is the only known measured flow of energy in the universe. If we only have one type of energy, radiated heat, that flows according to potentials in temperature difference, then everything is a product of heat.<br /><br />When it is easily shown that gravity equals the surface acceleration when using units for thermal resistance/pressure/stress, Nm^2. And that units for work as thermal resistance, has the same units as flux density of heat, then the force in a point at 9.8m/s or 9.8W/m, is equal to the thermal resistance of 96W/m^2 acting on a surface, which needs a source intensity that supply energy at the rate of 384W/m^2.<br /><br />These conclusions and simple transformation by using known and applied physical models for basic properties of heated mass, gives weight to arguments for abandoning current models and rely on what we know. Maybe add just a touch more innovative approach to energy, work and heat flows. But always avoiding assumptions about anything that is not based on observations. Dark matter, gravitational waves, black holes and their properties etc. , is entirely constructions of assembled assumptions which at best have some logic.<br /><br />If someone claims that the universe has 11 dimensions, and the reason is that the someone-person can´t manage to build a theory without it, then we should question why this person might be the problem. And that problem will not be solved by believing that reality has a bunch of never seen dimensions, instead of just putting a label on it that says: Bullshit! Stop wasting my time.<br /><br />"But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning."<br /><br />But what if there is no beginning and no end. What if time doesn´t exist as we know it. Consider the photon, time and space is irrelevant for the photon. It is constant in space. It carries energy, like a point signal. Until it is absorbed, then it dissipates through expansion in a volume in three dimensions. Conclusion:<br /><br />Point-source energy is constant and independent of distance and time. This means that the difference between the zero-dimensional point of energy, and the heated threedimensional volume, is time. From zero or maybe one linear dimension along its path, expansion in three dimensions is dependent only on time.<br /><br />One dimension of signal containing all the information in heat that expands into three dimensions of time in a volume of mass.<br /><br />It´s one-three dimensions, not three-one. Imagine you are a point in space travelling at the speed of light, reality expands behind you like ripples in the fabric of time. Everything you observe is from the past. Only your consciousness experience the point at the instantaneous "now". But the experienced immediate consciousness only observe the effects of actions and processes in the past.<br /><br />Everything is effect, only heat is a cause.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58402835596719219612017-06-01T07:24:27.347-04:002017-06-01T07:24:27.347-04:008c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df
"Right...8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df <br /><br />"Right now I am looking at amorphization of bismuth and bismuth iodide under pressure, so I probably won't get back to gravitational axions until they are detected. That requires some investment in haloscopes and possibly looking at the potential of a variable mass range first."<br /><br />Hi, remember me? The polite guy with hate towards the scientific equal to islam: climate science based on the greenhouse without windows.<br /><br />I left you to catch your breath a bit, you all seemed to have to much carbon dioxide in your systems.<br /><br />What kind of pressure are we talking about for the bismuth? That sounds awesome, I envy you. I would like to play with diamond anvils, they are brutal.<br /><br />Crap the axions, take a close look at heat instead. To get perspective of what we are analyzing and summing up what information we have, we can make a couple of definitive conclusions. <br /><br />First, the only observed independent form of energy that is universal, is radiation that has a character and dependent of only the temperature of the emitter. Which is practically only consisting of stellar bodies. Another observation is the work being done by gravity, observed indirect in the effects on radiation, like a wobble.<br /><br />That´s it. That is the only information that is independently observed from earth in its solar system.<br /><br />If the only universally observed expressions of energy, or anything at all, is thermal radiation and indirectly gravity from displacement of thermal energy in lensing or displacing the emitter by doing work, then it is perfectly logical to make a single conclusion:<br /><br />Thermal radiation, or heat flow, is very likely to be intimately related to the work done by gravity on its surroundings.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44192188979481006782017-04-11T11:08:19.160-04:002017-04-11T11:08:19.160-04:00Ditch accounting for planetary albedo so your math...Ditch accounting for planetary albedo so your maths will work out. Now that's a novel approach that I haven't seen before. Yes, the shit is adding up.Jim Eagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10448459024892788259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60278601990400676152017-04-11T02:46:54.982-04:002017-04-11T02:46:54.982-04:00LIT "gh-theory is crap"
Yes, your Nobel...LIT "gh-theory is crap"<br /><br />Yes, your Nobel Prize awaits.<br /><br />Or you're a moron.<br /><br />Or a very boring Poe.<br /><br />I'd bet on options 2 or 3. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't yet won the Nobel? Or perhaps you can just admit to being a Dunning-Kruger afflicted nutjob. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?<br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84976581344691867762017-04-10T21:00:58.442-04:002017-04-10T21:00:58.442-04:00I don't think you are pissing anyone off here,...I don't think you are pissing anyone off here, your ideas are too crankish, not backed up by any sound reasoning and fly in conflict with centuries old science. If you were write up your idea in an essay that flows properly from beginning to end, maybe. And I think you will find that my gravitational axion 'hypothesis' does contain some numbers and SI units, but more importantly, it references actual science papers.<br /><br />Right now I am looking at amorphization of bismuth and bismuth iodide under pressure, so I probably won't get back to gravitational axions until they are detected. That requires some investment in haloscopes and possibly looking at the potential of a variable mass range first.<br /><br />So really, until I see some empirical validation, further cranking on the math would be pointless. But if you need help with the math on your project I can suggest that you start here. At the beginning.<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model</a><br /><br />Glad to help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83325809260067183042017-04-10T20:24:04.438-04:002017-04-10T20:24:04.438-04:00OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df
"...OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df<br /><br />"So what I did (besides inventing a new domain of science) was remove the singularity behind the green curtain and replaced it with a time reversal invariant topological superfluid, which is thus amenable to topological quantum field theory. String theorists are necessarily outraged. Too bad for them. What you need to understand is the difference between cutting edge science and old tired worn out science. Until you can do that, you're just another worn out crank."<br /><br />Wow, and I didn´t see a single equation in there. Or did I miss it?<br /><br />Ok, I agree with you taking a dump on dark matter. Its the equaivalent og God and ghosts. But what if there is a correlation between surface emitted intensity on earth, and the energy needed to produce the force of gravity on this glowing ball? Would that be more reasonable than "cosmic axions" that has no confirmation in observation?<br /><br />I think it would. And this one needs no references, since nothing spooky that needs blankets is included. Only old high quality proven physics:<br /><br />https://wordpress.com/post/lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/577 <br /><br />I didn´t intend to promote my theory. I just want people to realize that the gh-theory is crap, and it is fun to piss blanket-people off by pointing to the violations of physics. But if you deliver articles about gravity without a single number, then here you go.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80897450024395646052017-04-10T19:28:48.454-04:002017-04-10T19:28:48.454-04:00@Jim Eager said
"Indeed. I can't wait fo... @Jim Eager said<br /><br />"Indeed. I can't wait for LIT's explanation of why earth's *surface* temp is not -15C"<br /><br />Here it comes... its the Sun. Surprise, surprise.<br /><br />Don´t take 30% of the heat away before calculating. There is no reason. Especially when shit add up if you don´t.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42044679763530379632017-04-10T19:25:31.183-04:002017-04-10T19:25:31.183-04:00@Blogger Eli Rabrtt
"The inside of the eart...@Blogger Eli Rabrtt <br /><br />"The inside of the earth may glow but fortunately there is a blanket of rock and soil between us and the core. The blanket keeps the core warm just as the blanjeting atmosphere protects us from the cold of space"<br /><br />But you do realize that the emission of the surface at 390W/m^2 comes from the inside and according to the inverse square law the source has to transfer 4*390W/m^2?<br /><br />Now it gets a bit more difficult to use a cold gas to produce the emitted intensity, doesn´t it?<br /><br />Why do you blanket-people think that you can use the inverse square law for the effective temperature, but then it can be thrown out when creating energy that flows from hot to cold?<br /><br />The inverse square law is actually for an internal heat source, the reason for using it for a blackbody heated externally is that the emission is equal to what an internal heat source would produce, when absorption and emission is perfect and twodimensional from a body of uniform temperature which has a surface infinitely thin and perfectly black. That is, not earth.<br /><br />For the effective temperature you need a source that is ~960W/m^2. How do you explain that with blankets?<br /><br />The addition from internal heat generation is ~90mW/m^2. That doesn´t mean that earth only emit 90mW. It means that internal heat transferred to the surface is 390W+90mW/m^2. And the source is x4.<br /><br />The small addition from internal generation means that the glowing inside is in near perfect equilibrium. Can you balance a glowing ball in equilibrium with a cold atmosphere? Do you think that the crust prevent the heat from the inside to flow into the ultimate heat sink? It is a very thin crust compared to the size of the glowing ball.<br /><br />You are free to use dry ice and wet, cold air as an explanation instead of the sun if you want, but do you really think that is a smart choice?lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49868936254008121692017-04-10T19:21:48.181-04:002017-04-10T19:21:48.181-04:00Well I'm sorry to say that your ground breakin...Well I'm sorry to say that your ground breaking paradigm busting refutation of well established physics won't be taken seriously without committing it to an easily readable essay with credible references.<br /><br />I recently wrote one because I'm getting a little tired of string theorists, and you'll just have to trust me that it had the desired effect.<br /><br /><a href="http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Axions.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Axions.pdf</a><br /><br />And then I was so happy with that that I gathered up what remained on the cutting room floor and turned that into something I can live with.<br /><br /><a href="http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Quantum_Cosmology.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Quantum_Cosmology.pdf</a><br /><br />So what I did (besides inventing a new domain of science) was remove the singularity behind the green curtain and replaced it with a time reversal invariant topological superfluid, which is thus amenable to topological quantum field theory. String theorists are necessarily outraged. Too bad for them. What you need to understand is the difference between cutting edge science and old tired worn out science. Until you can do that, you're just another worn out crank.<br /><br />Did I mention that I recently solved the origin of life problem and that bismuth iodide is a topological superconductor? Yes, I'm calling you a crank. Konrad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3425048199728203102017-04-10T18:52:48.748-04:002017-04-10T18:52:48.748-04:00@ 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df
"You...@ 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df <br /><br />"Your insane delusional hypothesis refuting the radiative properties of greenhouse gases and their efficacy in diminishing long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth into space on a nightly (and even daily) basis might be more persuasive of you wrote your equations up in an essay and submitted it for review here, and elsewhere."<br /><br />You have a crappy brain, I´m sorry.<br /><br />Why do I need to write an essay about how you can´t read?<br /><br />What I say is written in the physics of heat and temperature, it is old, old physics of the best of qualities. You don´t realize that you are the one that needs to write an essay about why anyone should listen to you arguing that the coldest body of three being the source of most of the heat in the system. Come on, tell me more about how the hot surface is heated by dry ice and not the sun. Crackpot.<br /><br />"Flailing around is not the most productive manner of expressing your crackpot ideas to the greater scientific community. You need to commit them to print"<br /><br />Yeah, to the peer review process ruined by Mann and his nazi-boyfriends. Peer-review doesn´t work anymore, climategate clearly show that the blanket-people destroyed it. And the way you blanket-people treat the ones that dare to say that dry ice is cold as shit, and not a heat source, clearly show how you killed science honor.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46515106076646590762017-04-10T18:41:37.710-04:002017-04-10T18:41:37.710-04:00@CapitalistImperialistPig
"John Tyndall'... @CapitalistImperialistPig <br /><br />"John Tyndall's experiments with the absorption and emission of radiation by atmospheric gases: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf"<br /><br />I read that not so long ago, fantastic reading. I really love to read the old articles where the discoveries were made.<br /><br />Now, what is the conclusion that can be made from that paper?<br /><br />How hot did the gases get in relation to how much radiation they absorbed?<br /><br />This is the main problem with the GH-theory. It only talks about absorption but it makes claims about emission. All papers I have read, and I read my way through the last century back to Tyndall, show how these gases absorb lots of radiation but emit very little.<br /><br />There is one part where he describes how temperature drops when gas is pulled inside the chamber, and then soon rise again. What is your take on that?<br /><br />My take is that the gas absorbs lots of radiation initially until it has filled up to maximum capacity for that volume.That is how absorption works, a body absorbs heat until it has reached its maximum in relation to its surroundings, and then there is no net heat transfer in any direction. Without net-transfer there is no change in temperature.<br /><br />Tyndall used a chamber of limited volume at room-temperature. What would have happened if he had surrounded his copperball-heat source with the gas in a chamber with vacuum at 3K, aka The Ultimate Heat Sink Of Unlimited Capacity? <br /><br />What he describes as he fills the chamber, is how the atmosphere relate to the heat source of the surface. It never reach anything near its capacity, since the gradient is like a free fall for heat. Look up the definitions of gradient, thermal insulation and its relation to absorption, thermal resistance, thermal conductivity etc. <br />The mechanisms of heating and retaining heat are no mysteries. They are well studied and understood. Every single one of them is a description of the opposite to the relationship between the surface and the cold, cold, wet and cold atmosphere.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60291159499324871512017-04-10T18:38:11.202-04:002017-04-10T18:38:11.202-04:00Your insane delusional hypothesis refuting the rad...Your insane delusional hypothesis refuting the radiative properties of greenhouse gases and their efficacy in diminishing long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth into space on a nightly (and even daily) basis might be more persuasive of you wrote your equations up in an essay and submitted it for review here, and elsewhere. Flailing around is not the most productive manner of expressing your crackpot ideas to the greater scientific community. You need to commit them to print.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25094595211955110382017-04-10T18:18:08.110-04:002017-04-10T18:18:08.110-04:00@ CapitalistImperialistPig
"A good IR radiom...@ CapitalistImperialistPig <br />"A good IR radiometer will measure at a range of frequencies, in some of which almost all the radiation comes from the closest few meters, and some in which some of the radiation comes from dozens of kilometers.<br /><br />How do you think satellites measure atmospheric temperature? I will tell you. They measure atmospheric emission at various (usually IR) frequencies, which comes from and characterizes the temperature at various levels."<br /><br />The satellites measure from an environment that is cold. If your device measure from a small gradient inside of the thermopile, space @ 3K is ideal for measuring incoming radiation. Placing it at the hottest location between space and the surface (on the surface that is), in a heat bath, you cannot measure any incoming heat since it works by using an equation for net heat transfer. I read the manual for a Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometer a while ago, and it clearly says that you will get a negative value which is used for the calculation showing incoming radiation. The meters showing incoming radiation at the surface are really showing what is NOT coming in. I must say I was surprised, I didn´t think unconfirmed assumptions were used as a base for building a device for scientific measurement. But it is logical, the IR-meters are built for measuring heat, not cold.<br /><br /><br />"Atmospheric gases, like all materials, radiate with an intensity that depends on their temperature and emissivity. The emissivity is almost always dependent on frequency. Contrary to what you have stated, absorption depends only indirectly on temperature, by altering the absorption coefficient."<br /><br />Yes, finally! They radiate according to temperature. Then you agree that the Trenberth cartoon energy-budget showing colorful arrows with 333W/m^2 from the atmosphere at -18C is bullshit?<br /><br />Since the heat transfer using Stefan-Boltzmann equation use difference in temperature to show how much the lower temperature body absorbs, I would say you are wrong. There is no absorption coefficient included.<br /><br />Total absorption might depend on absorption coefficient, but that is irrelevant in this situation, isn´t it? Its about how much heat goes to what location and what temperature that location has. Because the temperature at that altitude decide how much energy that is radiated to another location, and the temperature at that altitude is very low.<br /><br />"That radiation is nearly isotropic, equally in all directions, up, down and sidewise. Radiation flow is predominantly upwards because the hotter radiators below are radiating more than the colder radiators above - not because the direction in which they radiate is biased."<br /><br />Yes, isotropic radiation of low intensity from low temperatures. Put it in the equation for heat transfer to see how much it adds to the surface. <br /><br />0.0000000567(255^4-288^4)=-150W/m^2. Ooops, it didn´t add anything.<br /><br />The balance equation shows that heat is instantaneous, the atmosphere radiate at the same time as the surface. Think about what would happen if the surface didn´t have to share the energy with an atmosphere 100km high. It would have it all by itself and would have been much hotter. <br /><br />When solar radiation is absorbed the first time all of it is added to the system. You can´t add it twice, that is a perpetuum mobile. The greenhouse is explained as a time machine, it borrows energy from the past and that is unphysical.<br /><br /><br /> lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1575445327696605892017-04-10T09:47:51.573-04:002017-04-10T09:47:51.573-04:00"the blanketing atmosphere protects us from t..."the blanketing atmosphere protects us from the cold of space"<br /><br />Indeed. I can't wait for LIT's explanation of why earth's *surface* temp is not -15C.Jim Eagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10448459024892788259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11920101972434770402017-04-10T08:03:45.852-04:002017-04-10T08:03:45.852-04:00The inside of the earth may glow but fortunately t...The inside of the earth may glow but fortunately there is a blanket of rock and soil between us and the core. The blanket keeps the core warm just as the blanjeting atmosphere protects us from the cold of space.Eli Rabrtthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13793489993164786719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89567183735755785742017-04-09T21:06:51.680-04:002017-04-09T21:06:51.680-04:00John Tyndall's experiments with the absorption...John Tyndall's experiments with the absorption and emission of radiation by atmospheric gases: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdfCapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19184361890321209002017-04-09T20:40:27.220-04:002017-04-09T20:40:27.220-04:00@LIT
>>You were using arguments of authorit...@LIT<br /><br />>>You were using arguments of authority, not science.<br /><br />I was arguing from experience, both practical experience in measurement and many years study of theory.<br /><br />>>They have a reach of what? 25 meters?<br /><br />A good IR radiometer will measure at a range of frequencies, in some of which almost all the radiation comes from the closest few meters, and some in which some of the radiation comes from dozens of kilometers.<br /><br />How do you think satellites measure atmospheric temperature? I will tell you. They measure atmospheric emission at various (usually IR) frequencies, which comes from and characterizes the temperature at various levels.<br /><br />Atmospheric gases, like all materials, radiate with an intensity that depends on their temperature and emissivity. The emissivity is almost always dependent on frequency. Contrary to what you have stated, absorption depends only indirectly on temperature, by altering the absorption coefficient.<br /><br />That radiation is nearly isotropic, equally in all directions, up, down and sidewise. Radiation flow is predominantly upwards because the hotter radiators below are radiating more than the colder radiators above - not because the direction in which they radiate is biased.<br /><br />Hope you enjoyed your scotch.<br /><br /><br />CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77443602243747023992017-04-09T17:46:42.691-04:002017-04-09T17:46:42.691-04:00"OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df ..."OpenID 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...<br />Eight sequential comments, although not a record, is pretty impressive.<br /><br />Fortunately I did not take the time to read them. But as long as it keeps you engaged and off the streets and out of trouble, I'm good"<br /><br />I´m not surprised you don´t read them. You seem a bit intolerant to skeptic arguments which point to the physics that you violate with magic unicorns waving photon-blankets. <br /><br />It must be comfortable to be ignorant.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.com