The Hoax exhibit. Direct Fraud of AGW
kdt...@yahoo.com
This is a link to a demonstration of this hoax exhibit.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
The theory of AGW by grenhouse gases has no valid laboratory data for
their conclusions. If it were correct that CO2 has such inordinate
absorption of infrared that O2 and N2 do not, it could easily be
demonstrated in the laboratory, which it is not. This lack of
substantiation of this claim is laboratory proof of the invalidity.
This exhibit is unscientific for the following reasons:
A) It does not consider different frequencies allowed through the
glass. If done with various materials, neutral material can be found
which proves that it is not a property of the CO2 to retain heat and
cause a higher temperature. The actual cause of the quicker
temperature increase in the side with the CO2, is that the glass
allows the frequencies that the O2 and N2 of the atmosphere radiate
well, to escape. CO2 has a low emission band around 2.7um. The glass
allows these frequencies through. The O2 and N2 radiate well at 2.7um.
CO2 merely radiates better at other frequencies. Overall radiation of
energy is the same.
If CO2 had any such property as is claimed in this experiment, it
would be very useful in insulation which it is not. Air space is
useful for insulation. But in the end, their is no property of CO2,
water vapor or methane, to absorb infrared radiation and cause or
maintain higher temperatures.
B) Glass is 'temperature sensitive' to transmission of certain
frequencies of the infrared. Glass may transfer infrareds well, but
the temperature of the glass must be in accordance with the energy of
the photons. This is why in the hoax exhibit they use the pans of
water to block the infrareds from the incandescent bulb from reaching
the containers. It would warm the glass for the transmission of the
lower frequencies and negate the apparent but fraudulent conclusion of
the special property of CO2 to cause higher temperature.
C) It is done with sealed containers. This does not allow the gases to
expand. Therefore they increase their pressure as they increase their
temperature. In the atmosphere, gases are not contained. Therefore as
they heat up, they expand and the pressure remains the same.
D) It does not give a reading for 'final temperature'. In any
thermodynamic condition such as this, a final temperature will be
achieved at which there is equilibrium for input energy and energy
escaping. No fundamental determination of final temperature is
presented here. If CO2 had such properties it would affect final
temperature. The effect on temperature in this exhibit is the greater
loss of heat with the O2 and N2 which radiate well at the higher
frequencies which the glass radiates. Therefore, the temperature
increase in this side with the air is slower with this inducted
radiation and energy.
Equilibrium is achieved in any thermodynamic situation such as this.
At the point of equilibrium, incoming energy is equal to outgoing
energy and temperature is not changing. If a system is at a point of
equilibrium and outgoing radiation is restricted, temperature will
increase. As the temperature increases, the density per sq cm of the
radiation energy increases according to the Boltzman-Stefan equation.
At greater intensity per sq cm, again equilibrium will be reached.
Since the greater density of energy escaping from the lesser area will
again equal the input energy and temperature will stabilize.i.e. If
these jars are allowed to reach equilibrium, and then the lower half
of the jar is wrapped in insulative substance to reduce outgoing
radiation while incoming radiation is the same, at first the outgoing
radiation energy is not equal to incoming radiation. Therefore
temperature increases and density, (or intensity) increase as a fourth
power to temperature according to Stefan's Law. With the greater
density per sq cm of radiation energy, more energy is transferred in
the same sq cm. Therefore through the remaining area that has not been
restricted by the insulation, the same energy as is being input will
again go out of the system and temperature will stabilize. More energy
per sq cm at the higher temperature is being transferred. The area of
this outgoing radiation is diminished. The input energy is not
changed. The actual output energy has not changed and is exactly
equivalent to the input energy when temperature is stable. But the
restricted area of outgoing radiation, forces the greater density of
energy per sq cm and associated higher temperature.
E) It deals with visible light being input into the containers.
Visible light is high energy. A valid experiment would deal with the
energies of radiation for the earth's temperature. Although the earth
does absorb visible light and convert it to lower energy thermal
frequencies, it is not done with the very thin mass like the
cardboard. The material at the surface of the earth, particularly the
ocean, absorbs much more energy before it reaches a high radiative
temperature. The visible light on the cardboard, is converted by
absorption of the cardboard, which reaches a very high temperature,
and is re-emited as high energy near infrareds and high energy
infrareds, very unlike the radiation from the Earth.. These high
energy frequencies are not produced by the earth at the temperatures
that it is. These frequencies of the high energy infrareds are present
in the sun's radiation. This experiment does not show retention of the
frequencies near 15um that are the actual basis of Greenhouse Theory.
The proponents of AGW, often merely refer to 'IR' (infrared
radiation). They try to put a qualitative difference in
this radiation to that of visible light which is not valid. Infrared
radiation is merely lower energy photons.
The actual band of question is the 15um band. The assumptions of AGW
are false and fraudulent.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
This is a good graph that shows the radiation from the sun. 10^3 =
1um,,,10^4 = 10um
The sun radiates all through the infrareds. AGW changes Planck's Law
and graphs wavelength intensities. This gives a false impression of
energy. Infrareds are around 10^12 cycles per second. Visible light is
around 10^15 cycles per second (frequency). The velocity of light is
10^10 centimeters per second. This causes a false graph when Planck's
law is changed by simplifying in the formula, the v/c, within the
formula to wavelength. This is not what Planck meant and does not give
an accurate graph of relative energies or energy intensities. It is
very easy to derive a curve that somewhat resembles a distribution
curve for radiation.
F) Water vapor concentration is not controlled in these experiments.
Water vapor is an abnormal gas and has different pressures at
increasing temperature than normal gases. CO2 is a normal gas, and at
low pressures, behaves exactly like all other normal gases. At higher
pressure, radius of the molecules affects the mean free path and gases
are different according to the radius of their molecules. At lower
pressure this does not affect them. The weight of the molecule does
not affect the characteristics of a gas according to the most basic
principles of chemistry, of the 'kinetic theory of gases'. Water vapor
will affect the pressure of the contained gases as they increase their
temperature. The water vapor should be consistent in both
sides.
The side with the air has the water vapor of the air. The side with
the CO2, may not have this water vapor. CO2 infused into normal air
will not have water vapor and will therefore lower the concentration
of water vapor. Water vapor can be evaporated into the CO2 just like
into air. Water vapor can only exist up to 4% in air, maximum, and
this level is only in hurricanes. Normally it is between 2 - 3 %. In
cold regions such as the arctic, very little water vapor remains in
the air.
G) If a small cap of water is placed in both sides of this exhibit,
which allows the water to evaporate and to saturate both sides, the
effect of the nearly 100% CO2 disappears in this experiment. This
shows the futility of worrying about concentration changes of 100ppm
in the atmosphere, if the conclusions of 'IR absorption' were in any
way valid.
_________________________________________________________
You can't have any pudding if you don't beat your meat,,,,,,
How can you have any pudding if you don't beat your meat???
Deatherage
Eric Gisse
Godzilla Pimp
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173492652....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 4:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
>
> Why post to sci.physics when you reject physics?
Physics is of almost no use in weather prediction let alone in religious
cults like global warming.
hanson
news:%mpIh.125825$_73....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173492652....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 9, 4:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Why post to sci.physics when you reject physics?
>
> Physics is of almost no use in weather prediction let alone in religious
> cults like global warming.
.... ahahaha... That's what you think, rightfully and rationally so. But the
Greenies are not like that. They have a different notion, MO & agenda:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
ahahaha... ahahanson
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's ok. Morons like you reap what you sow.
Roger Coppock
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
This experiment demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I've seen a dozen or so like it at science fairs,
over the last few years. This is the best write up
I have seen of it, however. If you quibble with it,
get out of your arm chair, do your own experiment,
try to write what you have done half as well as this,
and post your results and conclusions on this forum.
The Ghost In The Machine
<rcop...@adnc.com>
wrote
on 9 Mar 2007 20:00:47 -0800
<1173499247.0...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Not bad, but the experiment would be more rigorous if
the vessels were allowed to cool, then the observations
repeated with the lights or vessels swapped. Also, I'm
not entirely certain that the light heights are controlled
sufficiently carefully.
It's otherwise a good demonstrator, though.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Joe Fischer
Thanks for posting this, it really helps me
understand what has taken place, but I hope
there is more than this "experiment".
The author did not mention the specific
heat of the air or the CO2, nor was the mass
of each mentioned.
A substance with a lower specific heat
takes less energy to heat up than one with a
higher specific heat.
And CO2 has a specific heat of about
0.791 at 250 Kelvin, while dry air has a specific
heat of about 1.005 at -50 celsius (the quick
references I found were at the different scales).
So dry air would require more energy
(heat) per unit of volume at the same pressure
and temperature of the CO2.
That seems to make that experiment
totally obvious, and might verify that as far
as absorbing radiant energy, CO2 only
warms faster/more than air because it
has a lower specific heat.
Whether or not that means CO2 will
radiate in all directions the heat it absorbs
any different than air at the same altitude
(temperature) or pressure, I still don't know,
but it is clear that CO2 does not absorb
more heat per unit of volume.
Maybe by having a lower specific
heat, and not being able to store/hold more
energy/heat, CO2 may be a better greenhouse
gas than air, but then again, it may not be
as good a GHG as air, or may be the same,
that experiment proves nothing except that
it takes less energy/heat to warm up CO2
each degree than air takes.
Chances are the water vapor lower
in the atmosphere has much more effect
than CO2 higher up.
Joe Fischer
hanson
news:2uf4v29vi0m56v3ml...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Mar 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>>This experiment demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
>>I've seen a dozen or so like it at science fairs,
>>over the last few years. This is the best write up
>>I have seen of it, however. If you quibble with it,
>>get out of your arm chair, do your own experiment,
>>try to write what you have done half as well as this,
>>and post your results and conclusions on this forum.
>
> Thanks for posting this, it really helps me
> understand what has taken place, but I hope
> there is more than this "experiment".
>
... ahahaha... That Poppock a haplessly fanatical class
3 enviro got orgasmic over this is a forgone conclusion.
But that you, Joe, get excited over this indicates that you
may have been victimized by the evil of the green bible.
***The GREEN BIBLE & its enviro Theology ***** in this link says that:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, ect...
IOW
if the experimenter would have shown in container (1)
common air with the current 380 ppm CO2 and in
in container (2) air scrubbed clean of CO2 = zero CO2
and reported a significant delta T between (1) & (2), then
his experiment would have had some significance for
the conditions in the real world but, as is he simply and
only demonstrated that air and CO2 have different heat
capacities, a fact that was/is known for 200 years now.
But, of course the edicts of the green Bible teach that:
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
---
ahahaha... ahahahanson
http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info
> But, of course the edicts of the green Bible teach that:
> = "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
> = up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
> = -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
> ---
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
He learned that from EXXON I bet.
.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Roger Coppock
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Roger Coppock
> <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote
> http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>
> > This experiment demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
> > I've seen a dozen or so like it at science fairs,
> > over the last few years. This is the best write up
> > I have seen of it, however. If you quibble with it,
> > get out of your arm chair, do your own experiment,
> > try to write what you have done half as well as this,
> > and post your results and conclusions on this forum.
>
> Not bad, but the experiment would be more rigorous if
> the vessels were allowed to cool, then the observations
> repeated with the lights or vessels swapped.
Yes.
hanson
from your usual and habitual alcoholic stupor, do notice what you
have posted last night and how it was perceived:
>
>
....... ahahahaha... Lion Kuntz' pinko-drunk logic ... AHAHAHAHA...
Lion Kuntz, aka "Awe Shit" aka "http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info"
being drunk like a swine, is posting his tripe at 1 AM in the morning
as Lion Kuntz the <Fecal.Fascin...@Exxon-Turds.info> w/i
news:1173516129.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
[hanson]
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/77f40053b929194b
hanson commenting on Poppcock who is deliriously happy that
he found two 9 year old boys who showed the difference in the
heat capacity of air and CO2, and Poppcock taking this as the
proof for Global warning... to which hanson responded with
::: But, of course the edicts of the green Bible teach that:
::: = "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
::: = up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is
::: ahahaha... .... HAHAHAHHA... ahahahaha...
... and now enter Lion Kuntz, the habitual drunkard, aka "Awe Shit"
... entering his own bet, asserting:
["Awe Shit"]
> He learned that from EXXON I bet.
> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... Lion, go say "Awe Shit" again and realize when you
have sobered up enough that
*** Environmentalism "makes the Rich richer and the Poor poorer!" ***
because
** Environmentalism is for $$$$$$$, the environment is the come-on **
Leon, don't be a dunce & realize that "Environmentalism is NOT tree
hugging" but a deadly serious $$$$$ MONEY $$$$ game as is written in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
wherein it says
= Environmentalism is Communism in Green...
= Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...
and wherein even Al Gore weighs in to profit, assuring you to that
= "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank.
>
Go call Al Gore and tell us what he said. Til then you will remain
Kuntz, the Dunce and great fun to play with... ahahaha... ahahanson
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On 9 Mar 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>
>
> Thanks for posting this, it really helps me
> understand what has taken place, but I hope
> there is more than this "experiment".
That is the sad thing about AGW. This is the ONLY laboratory datat
they have. Can't you tell the by the way Coppick drools at the famous
experiment first documented by Tyndall in 1860. That's awful strange
if it is such and important demonstration of such an important
physical property that it was ignored by Boltzman, Planck, Einstein
and all of modern physics and chemistry, until it was revived by the
cult of AGW along with the 19th century folk lore physics that were
entirely deposed by Planck and Einstein.
It is an exhibit, not a scientific experiment. Even just that the
water vapor is not carefully controlled shows the very poor
application of scientific method. Water vapor is an abnormal gas. At
increasing temperature, it produces a higher pressure than the normal
gases. By a considerable amount and this is true for it's partial
pressure when mixed with other gases. This also causes a slight
negative enthalpy. There are many, many factors in this that are not
controlled.
A valid scientific investigation of this experiment in which proper
controls are employed for all factors does not give the result that
CO2 has any property to cause higher temperature. If it is only the
heat capacity of CO2 that matters, it's affect on the air would be the
difference in the heat capacity divided by 10,000. No measurable
affect.
The principle effect in this experiment is caused by the solid
material of the glass and it's ability to retain heat or stop
transmission of infrareds at the lower frequencies. The O2 and N2
radiate well in the higher infrareds that also pass well through the
glass under these conditions. The high energy frequencies induced by
the visible light on the cardboard are not even considered in 'proper'
grenhouse theory which is concerned with the 15um band. Why in this
experiment do they not place dirt or rock or seawater in the
containers?? Because these substances have more body and will conduct
more energy to their interior before the surface reaches the very high
temperature to produce these very high energy infrareds. The earth
radiates very little energy at freqeuncies with greater energy than
about 7 or 8um.
This is a hoax in every regard. Good luck to those guilty of the
criminal fraud of this presentation with this stated conclusion in US
court.
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> on 9 Mar 2007 20:00:47 -0800
>
>
>
> >http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>
> > This experiment demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
> > I've seen a dozen or so like it at science fairs,
> > over the last few years. This is the best write up
> > I have seen of it, however. If you quibble with it,
> > get out of your arm chair, do your own experiment,
> > try to write what you have done half as well as this,
> > and post your results and conclusions on this forum.
>
> Not bad, but the experiment would be more rigorous if
> the vessels were allowed to cool, then the observations
> repeated with the lights or vessels swapped. Also, I'm
> not entirely certain that the light heights are controlled
> sufficiently carefully.
>
> It's otherwise a good demonstrator, though.
It's a demonstrator of a false conclusion that is entirely criminal if
presented in court or federal hearings. If one can get different
results from flourite or polymers as the containment, there must be a
calibration for the effects of these materials and the 'property' of
CO2. In fact neutral materials can be found which demonstrates the
effect is chiefly due to the particular solid material and not CO2.
This is totally hoaky to say that this is analagous to the
thermodynamics of the earth as visible light is converted to IR. And
then proceed to produce infrareds that are very high energy and have
nothing at all to do with the frequencies that are emitted at the
earth's temperature.
They have this experiment down to a fine art with the carefully
conditioned glass that only permits certain frequencies of the
infrared. With this glass carefully conditined by coatings, difference
in temperature can be detected with several ppm of CO2, in very small
volume. So why if the volume is expanded to room size and the
containment in the solid material is removed, this property of CO2
cannot be detected with any concentration up to 100%?? This should
fully be evident to those that work with these coatings for glass that
inhibit or allow certain frequencies of infrared.
This exhibit with this stated conclusion is fraud. Although it serves
the purpose for the maniacal AGW movement and their intent to disrupt
all of our lives according to their false science and physics.
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> "Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote in message
>
> >>http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
> >>This experiment demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
> >>I've seen a dozen or so like it at science fairs,
> >>over the last few years. This is the best write up
> >>I have seen of it, however. If you quibble with it,
> >>get out of your arm chair, do your own experiment,
> >>try to write what you have done half as well as this,
> >>and post your results and conclusions on this forum.
>
> [Joe]
> > Thanks for posting this, it really helps me
> > understand what has taken place, but I hope
> > there is more than this "experiment".
>
> [hanson]
> ... ahahaha... That Poppock a haplessly fanatical class
> 3 enviro got orgasmic over this is a forgone conclusion.
> But that you, Joe, get excited over this indicates that you
> may have been victimized by the evil of the green bible.
> ***The GREEN BIBLE & its enviro Theology ***** in this link says that:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
> = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> = believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, ect...
> IOW
l> common air with the current 380 ppm CO2 and in
l> in container (2) air scrubbed clean of CO2 = zero CO2
l> and reported a significant delta T between (1) & (2), then
l> his experiment would have had some significance for
l> the conditions in the real world but, as is he simply and
l> only demonstrated that air and CO2 have different heat
l> capacities, a fact that was/is known for 200 years now.
That is a very important point. How much is the trace CO2 affecting
the temperature increase in this air. The only phrase from physics
that greenies know is "CO2 absorbs IR". They state as a matter of fact
that O2 and N2 do not absorb IR. So if this were true, it could very
simply be demonstrated with container O2 and N2 with no absolutely no
CO2. Otherwise if the temperature increase is much the same as with
this minute concentration of CO2, the O2 and N2 are clearly absorbing
infrared radiation from the cardboard. The rate of temperature change
for these gases cannot be explained merely by their collisions with
the heated material and their absorption of heat by conduction.
They really need this idea that O2 and N2 do not absorb infrareds in
order to justify their calculations of the effect of existing
grenhouse gases. If there is no effect from existing gases, there is
no effect from minute increases in concentrations.
But this exhibit is used to support the fraudulent conclusion of
inordinate absorption of heat radiation by CO2. Such variations and
use of controls, which is the mark of the fascinating science of
chemistry, are not important to the intent of propaganda from this
hoax exhibit.
Deatherage
Eric Gisse
[...]
How did it come to be the case that a roofer thinks he understands
quantum theory and climatology better than the entire scientific
community?
kdt...@yahoo.com
Do you speak for the scientific community, altar boy of the religion??
You are too stupid to realize that you cannot disprove Einsteins
assertion and proof, that photons have mass, with reference to
Maxwell's mathematics.
Also, you say that Newton himself is invalid for classical mechanics.
In the meantime angular momentum for an orbital body is not the same
as for a flywheel. But that would require someone with mechanical
apptitude to understand, which you do not possess. If you throw a ball
in a gravitational field it does not travel in a straight line. It's
momentum must be considered as angular momentum and has nothing to do
with angular momentum of a flywheel, which is due to the fixed
attachment and transfers all the vectors into the new direction which
is at a specific angle to the present momentum and induces centripetal
force as the vectors are transfered.
When I went to college I learned from actual scientists. This is how I
am very able to distinguish between valid scientists and little shit
suckers like you. I am a highly skilled carpenter, shit sucker. This
is a marketable skill. As an intellectual, which you profess to be,
your inability to recount facts accurately makes you a worthless
parasitc twit.
Some academic community that squirts out little turds like you. Maybe
a full review of their validilty is in order by objective sources.
In the meantime, can't you even try to formulate original sentences?
You only type the exact same sentences. I guess you're little pea
brain is used to this sort of rote repitition. If your repeat
something from an accredited source, it means you are demonstrating
extreme intelligence, and you can go into the closet and take a few
strokes.
hahahahahahahahah
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Deatherage
Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy
> apptitude to understand, which you do not possess. If you throw a ball
> parasitc twit.
> a full review of their validilty is in order by objective sources.
> brain is used to this sort of rote repitition. If your repeat
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
Eric Gisse
>
> > On Mar 10, 2:53 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > How did it come to be the case that a roofer thinks he understands
> > quantum theory and climatology better than the entire scientific
> > community?
>
> Do you speak for the scientific community, altar boy of the religion??
> You are too stupid to realize that you cannot disprove Einsteins
> assertion and proof, that photons have mass, with reference to
> Maxwell's mathematics.
Photons don't have mass, and Einstein never said they did.
Perhaps if you continued your education rather than dropping out...
>
> Also, you say that Newton himself is invalid for classical mechanics.
No, I don't.
> In the meantime angular momentum for an orbital body is not the same
> as for a flywheel. But that would require someone with mechanical
> apptitude to understand, which you do not possess. If you throw a ball
> in a gravitational field it does not travel in a straight line. It's
> momentum must be considered as angular momentum and has nothing to do
> with angular momentum of a flywheel, which is due to the fixed
> attachment and transfers all the vectors into the new direction which
> is at a specific angle to the present momentum and induces centripetal
> force as the vectors are transfered.
Of course they are different, dumbass. A flywheel is a continuous
entity, a planet is a body moving under the action of a central force.
The flywheel's angular momentum is L = I*omega, where I is its' moment
of inertia and omega is its' angular momentum. The planet's angular
momentum is L = r x p. Don't be confused though - they both obey L = r
x p, but it is much harder to describe an entity like a flywheel with
L = r x p.
Would you like to continue this discussion, or would you like to run
away to rant more about yet another subject you don't understand?
Perhaps if you continued your education rather than dropping out...
>
> When I went to college I learned from actual scientists. This is how I
> am very able to distinguish between valid scientists and little shit
> suckers like you. I am a highly skilled carpenter, shit sucker. This
> is a marketable skill. As an intellectual, which you profess to be,
> your inability to recount facts accurately makes you a worthless
> parasitc twit.
Oh I'm sure you are at least marginally capable of nailing stuff
together. It isn't that hard - I have done that as summer work. I like
it, actually. I'll probably do it again this summer - it pays well.
However, that has no bearing on your scientific aptitude.
It is obvious you are at least slightly educated - you know the words
and some of the basics. However, the more advanced stuff eludes you.
You know enough QM to know about Wien's law, the Rydberg formula, and
the Bohr model [and problems therein] but you never made it far enough
to see the result. You know enough about mechanics to understand the
concept of angular momentum and Kepler's laws, but you never made it
far enough to see how they can all be derived from F = ma and Newton's
law of gravitation.
How is it that you, who by all appearances only took 1 or 2 physics
courses ever, have the aptitude to say that entire fields of physics
are junk science even though you don't even understand classical
mechanics?
>
> Some academic community that squirts out little turds like you. Maybe
> a full review of their validilty is in order by objective sources.
By who? Someone who never made it past the freshman physics courses?
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 11, 9:39 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 5:55 pm, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 2:53 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Do you speak for the scientific community, altar boy of the religion??
> > You are too stupid to realize that you cannot disprove Einsteins
> > assertion and proof, that photons have mass, with reference to
> > Maxwell's mathematics.
>
l> Photons don't have mass, and Einstein never said they did.
There you go with your continued invalidity and normal dishonesty.
Einstein very specifically said that photons have mass. In his 1905
'theorem of the inertia of energy', which states that, "All energy has
mass and it's associated momentum according to the equation, E =
mc^2."
There are many thought experiments dealing with such things as the
momentum of the light as it is expelled and then received.
Einstein derived this equation and theorem after experiments showing
the inertia of light were done in 1901 and 1903. These were later
precisely done and confirmed by Gerlach and associates. There are
countless other means that this is demonstrated.
What good is an intellectual who cannot even accept or validate such
facts as this??
The rest of Eric, the irritated altar boy of the religion,'s rant is
also invalid. Normal psychological inability of the dishonest and
mediocre schoolboy to understand that his memorized crap is also from
dishonest and mediocre schoolboys.
Deatherage
Exxon Liars & Thieves
On Mar 14, 2:39 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ... irritated altar boy of the religion,'s rant is
> also invalid. Normal psychological inability of the dishonest and
> mediocre schoolboy to understand that his memorized crap is also from
> dishonest and mediocre schoolboys.
>
> Deatherage
crackpot. ignore
The_Man
> The hoax exhibit. Direct fraud in the stated conclusion.
>
>
> The theory of AGW by grenhouse gases has no valid laboratory data for
> their conclusions. If it were correct that CO2 has such inordinate
> absorption of infrared that O2 and N2 do not, it could easily be
> demonstrated in the laboratory, which it is not. This lack of
> substantiation of this claim is laboratory proof of the invalidity.
This is a trivial experiment, done every day throughout the world in
colleges and Universities. Neither N2 or O2 absorb IR, since the
selection rules for absorption of IR don;t apply. (There is no
permanent dipole moment, and there is no vibration which causes a
change in dipole moment. Or, if you know group theory, there is no
vibrational mode that transforms like x, y, or z)
The selection rules DO apply to CO2, methane, and H2O. ALL the modes
of water (A1 and B2) are IR active, and several of the modes for
methane and CO2 are active.
So you are completely andf totally full of shit, right from the
beginning. If you ever took a science course above grade school, you
might know this already. Please respond, showing whether you
understand the selection rules for IR.
>
> This exhibit is unscientific for the following reasons:
>
<snipped blather>
> If CO2 had any such property as is claimed in this experiment, it
> would be very useful in insulation which it is not. Air space is
> useful for insulation. But in the end, their is no property of CO2,
> water vapor or methane, to absorb infrared radiation and cause or
> maintain higher temperatures.
The reason for the superiority of vaccuum over air as an insultator is
a consequence of convection.
<snipped more balther>
> Equilibrium is achieved in any thermodynamic situation such as this.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Equilibrium is
eventually achieved between graphite and diamond, but it takes
millions of years.
> At the point of equilibrium, incoming energy is equal to outgoing
> energy and temperature is not changing. If a system is at a point of
What if it ISN'T at equilibrium? Answer: "Never mind...."
> equilibrium and outgoing radiation is restricted, temperature will
> increase. As the temperature increases, the density per sq cm of the
> radiation energy increases according to the Boltzman-Stefan equation.
> At greater intensity per sq cm, again equilibrium will be reached.
You keep saying that "equilibrium will be achieved", but you have no
proof of this, just your conjecture.
It is lower energy photons, THAT JUST SO HAPPEN to match the energy of
vibrational transitions of certain gases. It it the end part of this
phrase that you simply don't understand.
>
> The actual band of question is the 15um band. The assumptions of AGW
> are false and fraudulent.http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
There are faulty and suspicious assumptions of AGW, but you aren't
discussing them. You are faliling around trying to prove wrong a basic
fact of physics that no proponent N OR OPPONENT of AGW would deny. You
would make a more effective argument against AGW if you actually knew
anything.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
> This is a good graph that shows the radiation from the sun. 10^3 =
> 1um,,,10^4 = 10um
>
<snipped>
> F) Water vapor concentration is not controlled in these experiments.
> Water vapor is an abnormal gas and has different pressures at
> increasing temperature than normal gases. CO2 is a normal gas,
I can;t even begin to figure out what the fuck you are trying to say
here. Are you trying tom say that water is a less ideal gas than CO2?
>and at
> low pressures, behaves exactly like all other normal gases. At higher
> pressure, radius of the molecules affects the mean free path and gases
> are different according to the radius of their molecules. At lower
> pressure this does not affect them. The weight of the molecule does
> not affect the characteristics of a gas according to the most basic
> principles of chemistry, of the 'kinetic theory of gases'.
Sure it does. Look at the formula for the root mean square speed: The
M (for molecular weight) in the denominator might give you a clue.
> Water vapor
> will affect the pressure of the contained gases as they increase their
> temperature. The water vapor should be consistent in both
> sides.
>
<Snipped some more>
By the way, the influence of water vapor and CO2 on absorption of IR
has a very important military consequence. In bad weather, IR missiles
work poorly, if at all. So for "All weather capability", the military
uses RADAR, not IR.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
On Mar 10, 10:00 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is a hoax in every regard. Good luck to those guilty of the
> criminal fraud of this presentation with this stated conclusion in US
> court.
>
> Deatherage
crackpot. ignore.
It's all a big plot to make republicans look really really stupid.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 9, 8:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The hoax exhibit. Direct fraud in the stated conclusion.
>
> > This is a link to a demonstration of this hoax exhibit.http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>
> colleges and Universities. Neither N2 or O2 absorb IR, since the
> selection rules for absorption of IR don;t apply. (There is no
> permanent dipole moment, and there is no vibration which causes a
> change in dipole moment. Or, if you know group theory, there is no
> vibrational mode that transforms like x, y, or z)
>
> The selection rules DO apply to CO2, methane, and H2O. ALL the modes
> of water (A1 and B2) are IR active, and several of the modes for
> methane and CO2 are active.
>
> So you are completely andf totally full of shit, right from the
> beginning. If you ever took a science course above grade school, you
> might know this already. Please respond, showing whether you
> understand the selection rules for IR.
What you've just said is blithering nonsense that someone told you. If
what you said were true, this could be demonstrated very easily. The
temperature difference for different concentrations of these gases
could be shown. These little hoax experiments like this do not show
this incredibly different properties to absorb infrareds. A simple
room without the containment of the heat by the glass or similar
material shows no inordinate properties or selection rules like you
say.
Refer to actual complete laboratory analyses instead of the same old
stale theory that you have heard that CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE
LABORATORY.
>
> > This exhibit is unscientific for the following reasons:
>
> <snipped blather>
>
> > If CO2 had any such property as is claimed in this experiment, it
> > would be very useful in insulation which it is not. Air space is
> > useful for insulation. But in the end, their is no property of CO2,
> > water vapor or methane, to absorb infrared radiation and cause or
> > maintain higher temperatures.
>
> The reason for the superiority of vaccuum over air as an insultator is
> a consequence of convection.
What does this have to do with the real world fact that there is no
actual property of CO2 to retain thermal frequencies and cause a
higher temperature or this would be used in the real world and could
reduce energy consumption. Put your money where your mouth and
schoolroom theory of selection rules is, chump.
>
> > Equilibrium is achieved in any thermodynamic situation such as this.
>
> You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Equilibrium is
> eventually achieved between graphite and diamond, but it takes
> millions of years.
No understanding of heat and energy. It is very simple. Boltzman
Stefan is a rate of energy in Joules per second. Surface area of
radiation gives a quantity. Heat capacity at normal temperatures is
achieved in seconds or minutes at the rate of energy transfer of
radiation for temperature. If these glass jars are irradiated with
this same rate of incoming energy, it is a very short time before the
outgoing energy equals the input energy and the temperature becomes
stable and does not change. If the outgoing energy is restricted, the
outgoing energy condenses and again outgoing energy equals input
energy, only through less aperature.
A blackened piece of steel perpendicular to the sun in the solar
constant of 1370W, will achieve the temperature of 121C. It will then
be in equilibrium and no matter how long it stays in the solar
constant, will not increase it's temperature. This is physics. Sorry
it is not what you paid for and learned in charlatan science that you
repeat.
Bullshit. Photons in the thermal frequencies are absorbed uniformly.
All molecules have the continous spectra in the thermals and have
lighter and darker bands of emission. All substances reach the same
temperature in an oven. If what you said were true, O2 and N2 would
not achieve temperature. And different concentrations of GHGs would
show definite differences in the temperature achieved. NO Laboratory
data for a damn thing you say.
Meaningless theoretical conjecture for which you cannot quantify the
energy of a gas, it's pressure, it's heat capacity. One of these days
you should try to integrate your theory with something called a
thermometer. This is an actual measure of the energy of a gas.
According to Planck, hvmax of the distribution is 4.96kT. In his
radiation formula, the loghv/kT actually makes the fraction kT/hv. So
as hv becomes greater than kT, the fraction becomes greater, or of
less value. This is being multiplied by the distribution, 8piv^2. So
as the intensity was increasing as a square to frequency, when hv
becomes much greater than kT, this increase begins to diminish until
the fraction has such a low value that it begins to decrease the
intensity of the distribution for the increasing frequencies. The peak
then for the distribution is due to this relationship of hv/kT and
predicts Wiens Law at 4.96kT for hv. Which is also .2898cm/T for
wavelength.
>
>
>
> > The actual band of question is the 15um band. The assumptions of AGW
> > are false and fraudulent.http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
>
> There are faulty and suspicious assumptions of AGW, but you aren't
> discussing them. You are faliling around trying to prove wrong a basic
> fact of physics that no proponent N OR OPPONENT of AGW would deny. You
> would make a more effective argument against AGW if you actually knew
> anything.
>
>
>
> >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
> > This is a good graph that shows the radiation from the sun. 10^3 =
> > 1um,,,10^4 = 10um
>
> <snipped>
>
> > F) Water vapor concentration is not controlled in these experiments.
> > Water vapor is an abnormal gas and has different pressures at
> > increasing temperature than normal gases. CO2 is a normal gas,
>
> I can;t even begin to figure out what the fuck you are trying to say
> here. Are you trying tom say that water is a less ideal gas than CO2?
You really shouldn't show your ignorance so blatantly when you use
such insultive remarks. Of course water vapor is not an ideal gas.
LOOK IT UP DILDO BREATH. CO2 is a perfectly ideal gas at low pressure.
Water vapor has a very definite greater increase in pressure at
increasing temperature that other gases do not. It can exists at
maximum 4% in air. When it is in vapor equilibrium with another gas,
this affect on pressure is in the combined gases.
Without carefully controlling the water vapor in each side, this is a
vey unscientific experiment. Also, pure carbon dioxide has a higher
molar heat capacity than air. Heat capacity only affects time to reach
final temperature, It does not affect the heat retention of the gases,
since it is latent heat. It would cause a slower time to lose all
heat, with heat source removed. Heat capacity of CO2 at 1/10,000 of
the atmosphere is completely negligible.
> >and at
> > low pressures, behaves exactly like all other normal gases. At higher
> > pressure, radius of the molecules affects the mean free path and gases
> > are different according to the radius of their molecules. At lower
> > pressure this does not affect them. The weight of the molecule does
> > not affect the characteristics of a gas according to the most basic
> > principles of chemistry, of the 'kinetic theory of gases'.
>
> Sure it does. Look at the formula for the root mean square speed: The
> M (for molecular weight) in the denominator might give you a clue.
This proves that you have no understanding whatsoever of the 'kinetic
theory of gases'. Check the inert gases. They have only one atom in
each molecule. These weigh very considerably different. Yet they all
have exactly the same molar heat capacity. All solids, regardless of
their mass, have generally 26 Joules per mole per degree heat
capacity.
You really should have learned some basics before you became a
guardian of the false theory.
The kinetic theory of gases means exactly that the ideal gas law can
be derived. With this regardless of mass or the gas, the pressure
developed at temperature increase is the same. This is caused by the
velocities of the molecules. The mass of these molecules does not
matter. The same kinetic energy is absorbed and they cause the same
pressure.
> > Water vapor
> > will affect the pressure of the contained gases as they increase their
> > temperature. The water vapor should be consistent in both
> > sides.
>
> <Snipped some more>
>
> By the way, the influence of water vapor and CO2 on absorption of IR
> has a very important military consequence. In bad weather, IR missiles
> work poorly, if at all. So for "All weather capability", the military
> uses RADAR, not IR.- Hide quoted text -
You cannot define absorption in any relation to retention of energy
that causes higher temperature. So what if certain frequencies are not
transmitted due to water vapor or CO2. They are easily converted to
other frequencies and the rate of energy transference is the same.
Thus no effect on temperature.
This is what actual scientists that use thermometers and laboratory
analyses have discovered. It is not worth much to simple repeat the
same stale rhetoric of selection rules and absorption of IR by gases
of the piss poor and invalid rhetoric designed to revive the 19th
century folk lore physics of grenhouse gases.
Deatherage
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
> blithering nonsense
> Refer to actual complete laboratory analyses i
> energy, only through less aperature.
> All molecules have the continous spectra
> such insultive remarks.
> LOOK IT UP DILDO BREATH.
> analyses have discovered. It is not worth much to simple repeat the
> century folk lore physics of grenhouse gases.
>
> Deatherage
crackpot. ignore.
The_Man
> On Mar 14, 6:36 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > The hoax exhibit. Direct fraud in the stated conclusion.
>
> > > This is a link to a demonstration of this hoax exhibit.http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
>
> > This is a trivial experiment, done every day throughout the world in
> > colleges and Universities. Neither N2 or O2 absorb IR, since the
> > selection rules for absorption of IR don;t apply. (There is no
> > permanent dipole moment, and there is no vibration which causes a
> > change in dipole moment. Or, if you know group theory, there is no
> > vibrational mode that transforms like x, y, or z)
>
> > The selection rules DO apply to CO2, methane, and H2O. ALL the modes
> > of water (A1 and B2) are IR active, and several of the modes for
> > methane and CO2 are active.
>
> > So you are completely andf totally full of shit, right from the
> > beginning. If you ever took a science course above grade school, you
> > might know this already. Please respond, showing whether you
> > understand the selection rules for IR.
>
> What you've just said is blithering nonsense that someone told you. If
> what you said were true, this could be demonstrated very easily.
And it is.
> The
> temperature difference for different concentrations of these gases
> could be shown.
There is little temperature increase in the IR experiment, becuase the
Nernst glower has very low power.
> These little hoax experiments like this do not show
> this incredibly different properties to absorb infrareds.
Of course they do, moron. Tell us what school at which you took
instrumental analysis, so that we know to avoid that school - they
obviously did not present the material properly. Since you think you
know something, kindly post the IR spectrum of N2 (can't - doesn't
absorb in the IR), O2 (again can't - doesn't absorb in the IR), CO2
(absorbs like a mofo). Take a look at exactly WHERE the absorptions
are for CO2.
> A simple
> room without the containment of the heat by the glass or similar
> material shows no inordinate properties or selection rules like you
> say.
The absorption of IR by CO2 has NOTHING to do with glass. Typically,
you run the spectrum of CO2 in quartz, which doesn't absorb much IR.
To correct for any small effect, it is blanked out (We run the
spectrum of the EMPTY quartz container WITHOUT CO2, and subtract it
from the spectrum of the quartz WITH CO2).
>
> Refer to actual complete laboratory analyses instead of the same old
> stale theory that you have heard that CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE
> LABORATORY.
These are done in the lab EVERY SINGLE DAY, your ignorant claims to
the contrary. How would YOU know what the fuck happens in a lab? You
obviously have not worked in even the most poorly equipped chem lab,
since IR is a very basic and essential structure determination tool.
If N2 absorbed in the IR, you could never get the spectrum of
anything, since the instrument is routinely PURGED WITH N2 (to reduce
the interference of ... drum roll please.... water and CO2)
> > > This exhibit is unscientific for the following reasons:
>
> > <snipped blather>
>
> > > If CO2 had any such property as is claimed in this experiment, it
> > > would be very useful in insulation which it is not. Air space is
> > > useful for insulation. But in the end, their is no property of CO2,
> > > water vapor or methane, to absorb infrared radiation and cause or
> > > maintain higher temperatures.
>
> > The reason for the superiority of vaccuum over air as an insultator is
> > a consequence of convection.
>
> What does this have to do with the real world fact that there is no
> actual property of CO2 to retain thermal frequencies and cause a
> higher temperature or this would be used in the real world and could
> reduce energy consumption. Put your money where your mouth and
> schoolroom theory of selection rules is, chump.
In other words, you don't know anything about why certain molecules
aborb IR, and why they absorb in certain regions. Hate to tell you,
the word passed you by about 1915.
>
>
>
> > > Equilibrium is achieved in any thermodynamic situation such as this.
>
> > You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Equilibrium is
> > eventually achieved between graphite and diamond, but it takes
> > millions of years.
>
> No understanding of heat and energy. It is very simple. Boltzman
> Stefan is a rate of energy in Joules per second. Surface area of
> radiation gives a quantity. Heat capacity at normal temperatures is
> achieved in seconds or minutes at the rate of energy transfer of
> radiation for temperature. If these glass jars are irradiated with
> this same rate of incoming energy, it is a very short time before the
"very short time" - yes, for a fucking small glass jar. In case you
hadn't noticed, dickwad, the earth is a little bigger than a small
glass fucking jar. The earth also reaches equilibrium far more slowly
than a gas jar. Why? Let's explain this so than even a fucking moron
with the science skills of an ignorant 5 year old can understand...
1. A glass jar is heated practically equally by the incoming
radiation. The earth has very defintive "differential heating". That
is why it is much warmer at the equator than at the poles. Did you
ever learn this? There is also differential heating with respect to
DAY and NIGHT. Did mommy ever explain why it was all dark outside, and
that the boogie man of global warming would come and get you in your
bed if you weren't good?
2. Convection currents transfer heat throught the earth's atmosphere.
For a 5 year old, "convection currents" = WIND.
3. Ocean currents transfer substantial amounts of heat. This is why
the Gulf Stream keeps Europe much warmer than it would be merely due
to differential heating explained in (2)
4. The Oceans themselves are subject to convection - hot water is less
dense than cold water, and therefore rises. Since the oceans are up to
22,000 feet deep, equilibrium is not achieved quickly (if ever)
5. The oceans, being made of water. which has a high heat capacity,
absorbs heat during the day, and radiate it at night. This is a system
that practically never is at equilibrium.
6. And so on. I am too tired to explain grade school science to a
moron.
> outgoing energy equals the input energy and the temperature becomes
> stable and does not change. If the outgoing energy is restricted, the
> outgoing energy condenses and again outgoing energy equals input
> energy, only through less aperature.
What the fuck is "aperature"?
>
> A blackened piece of steel perpendicular to the sun in the solar
> constant of 1370W, will achieve the temperature of 121C. It will then
> be in equilibrium and no matter how long it stays in the solar
> constant, will not increase it's temperature. This is physics. Sorry
> it is not what you paid for and learned in charlatan science that you
> repeat.
And the reason for this? Hint: it has nothing to do with the Stefan-
Boltzmann equation. Another hint: energy transfer can occur by 3
processes, not just 1.
> > > At the point of equilibrium, incoming energy is equal to outgoing
> > > energy and temperature is not changing. If a system is at a point of
>
> > What if it ISN'T at equilibrium? Answer: "Never mind...."
You didn't answer here, 'cause you don't know.
>
> > > equilibrium and outgoing radiation is restricted, temperature will
> > > increase. As the temperature increases, the density per sq cm of the
> > > radiation energy increases according to the Boltzman-Stefan equation.
> > > At greater intensity per sq cm, again equilibrium will be reached.
>
> > You keep saying that "equilibrium will be achieved", but you have no
> > proof of this, just your conjecture.
Again, your bluff has been called, and your ignorance shines through.
This is utterly and totally wrong, and a single IR spectrum of
ANYTHING that actually aborbs in the IR proves it. Let's see how long
it takes to find it on Google...
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
It took less than a minute. It was the FIRST image that came up. How
the fuck can you can say that this is "uniform absorption"????? If you
would learn how to read a simple spectrum, it would really help your
ignorance.
> All molecules have the continous spectra in the thermals and have
> lighter and darker bands of emission.
Bahhhh! Wrong again!
> All substances reach the same
> temperature in an oven.
Then put yourself into one.
> If what you said were true, O2 and N2 would
> not achieve temperature. And different concentrations of GHGs would
> show definite differences in the temperature achieved. NO Laboratory
> data for a damn thing you say.
See 1 paragraph above, moron.
>
> Meaningless theoretical conjecture for which you cannot quantify the
> energy of a gas, it's pressure, it's heat capacity.
Maybe you should learn how to spell "its". BTW, the heat capacity of a
gas is closely related to its vibrational frequencies.
>One of these days
> you should try to integrate your theory with something called a
> thermometer. This is an actual measure of the energy of a gas.
>
> According to Planck, hvmax of the distribution is 4.96kT.
And Planck's equations, while they worked, were ad hoc. What Planck
and others LATER learned was WHY the equations worked. The mechanism
of IR absorption was derived by Schroedinger in 1925, so you are a
little late.
> In his
> radiation formula, the loghv/kT actually makes the fraction kT/hv. So
> as hv becomes greater than kT, the fraction becomes greater, or of
> less value. This is being multiplied by the distribution, 8piv^2. So
> as the intensity was increasing as a square to frequency, when hv
> becomes much greater than kT, this increase begins to diminish until
> the fraction has such a low value that it begins to decrease the
> intensity of the distribution for the increasing frequencies. The peak
> then for the distribution is due to this relationship of hv/kT and
> predicts Wiens Law at 4.96kT for hv. Which is also .2898cm/T for
> wavelength.
Wien's displacement law is only true for a blackbody, and a blackbody
at a high temperature (such as a star). It fails miserably for long
wavelengths - kind of like you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The actual band of question is the 15um band. The assumptions of AGW
> > > are false and fraudulent.http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
>
> > There are faulty and suspicious assumptions of AGW, but you aren't
> > discussing them. You are faliling around trying to prove wrong a basic
> > fact of physics that no proponent NOR OPPONENT of AGW would deny. You
> > would make a more effective argument against AGW if you actually knew
> > anything.
You didn't respond here.
>
> > >http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
> > > This is a good graph that shows the radiation from the sun. 10^3 =
> > > 1um,,,10^4 = 10um
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > F) Water vapor concentration is not controlled in these experiments.
> > > Water vapor is an abnormal gas and has different pressures at
> > > increasing temperature than normal gases. CO2 is a normal gas,
>
> > I can;t even begin to figure out what the fuck you are trying to say
> > here. Are you trying tom say that water is a less ideal gas than CO2?
>
> You really shouldn't show your ignorance so blatantly when you use
> such insultive remarks. Of course water vapor is not an ideal gas.
> LOOK IT UP DILDO BREATH. CO2 is a perfectly ideal gas at low pressure.
CO2 is a "perfectly ideal gas". You mean other than its really high
boiling point, and the fact that is sublimes? Look up the van der
Waals coefficients for CO2, then explain to mean how "ideal" it is.
Oh, I forgot - you don't know shit, so you don;t know the van der
Waals equation, or the virial equation.
<snipped more ignorant rambling>
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 14, 8:25 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 6:36 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 8:55 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > The hoax exhibit. Direct fraud in the stated conclusion.
>
> > What you've just said is blithering nonsense that someone told you. If
> > what you said were true, this could be demonstrated very easily.
>
> And it is.
>
> > The
> > temperature difference for different concentrations of these gases
> > could be shown.
>
""> There is little temperature increase in the IR experiment, becuase
the
""> Nernst glower has very low power.
As such a critical piece of your discusion which allows you to evade
the issue that CO2 does not affect temperature in valid experiments,
you should define this better.
>
> > These little hoax experiments like this do not show
> > this incredibly different properties to absorb infrareds.
>
> Of course they do, moron. Tell us what school at which you took
> instrumental analysis, so that we know to avoid that school - they
> obviously did not present the material properly. Since you think you
> know something, kindly post the IR spectrum of N2 (can't - doesn't
> absorb in the IR), O2 (again can't - doesn't absorb in the IR), CO2
> (absorbs like a mofo). Take a look at exactly WHERE the absorptions
> are for CO2.
>
> > A simple
> > room without the containment of the heat by the glass or similar
> > material shows no inordinate properties or selection rules like you
> > say.
>
> The absorption of IR by CO2 has NOTHING to do with glass. Typically,
> you run the spectrum of CO2 in quartz, which doesn't absorb much IR.
> To correct for any small effect, it is blanked out (We run the
> spectrum of the EMPTY quartz container WITHOUT CO2, and subtract it
> from the spectrum of the quartz WITH CO2).
Laboratory evidence of dark bands of CO2 does not prove your assertion
that CO2 has inordinate capabilties to absorb or retain heat.
The glass is selective to frequencies of high energy infrareds. It
allows the frequencies that O2 and N2 radiate well to pass and
restricts the frequencies in which CO2 radiates well. Reduction of
transference in one frequency only means the energy is transfered in
other frequencies, retard.
So what if you can show bands of low emission in the continous spectra
of the infrared that the continous spectra of O2 and N2 do not have.
O2 and N2 still absorb these same frequencies and radiate at these
frequencies. CO2 radiaties better at adjacent frequencies and
therefore has these bands of low emission. Therefore the overall
transference of energy is the same and CO2 causes no higher temperture
as laboratory data PROVES.
If all your claims were true, different concentrations of CO2 to air
in a volume of about room size would show very different temperatures.
Any nut can sit around and theorize that what he has theoretically
determined to be 'absorption bands', of CO2 are absorbing energy. But
science and chemistry is based on proof. You have no proof of this.
Show the effect on temperature in a room without walls made of
materials which are selective to frequencies that they allow to pass.
If O2 and N2 are in a room, and there is a radiator in the room for
heating, the gases absorb the thermal frequencies and increase their
temperature. The pressure or volume of the gas changes according to P/
V = nRT. These gases absorb the infrared radiation which is the heat.
This radiation has a specific quantity of energy according to hv and
intensity of hv at each thermal frequency. If the room is pure CO2,
and the same heat is applied, the temperature of the room will reach
exactly the same final temperature. However, CO2 has a higher molar
heat capacity. Therefore there will be a slightly greater time for the
CO2 to reach final temperature. The higher molar heat capacity of CO2,
will also be evident in slower rate of temperature loss with nearly
pure CO2.
You have no math for the energy and temperature of O2 and N2. It is
not mathematically possible that they are only absorbing, transfering
and maintaining energy solely by the kinetic energy of their
velocities or collisions. At any temperature, there is a radiation
field according to Boltzman Stefan equation and hvmax = 4.96kT.
The O2 and N2 increase their temperature and pressure or volume
according to the energy of the infrareds that they absorb. The O2 and
N2 absorb and emit a radiation field which has the spectral
distribution of Planck's radiation law, and a frequency maximum
according to Planck and Wien of 4.96kT. This is called temperature and
is measured with a thermometer. The bands of higher or lower emission
in the continous spectra of the infrareds which all molecules have, do
not affect their overall properties of heat, which is stated in
Kirchoffs theorem which states, 'the ratio of absorptive to emissive
powers is due to the temperature and not the nature of the substance.
Otherwise different material would not reach the same temperature in
an enclosure of an oven.
The classical/quantum theory that you attend to, tries to reinvoke
Maxwell's equations from classical physics and other tenets of
classical physics. Folklore physics with no actual ability to quantify
energy. Maxwell was wrong in trying to define the linear motion of the
molecules as 3/2 kT.
If your imagined effect from the 'absorption' bands of CO2 were true,
introduction of increasing concentrations of CO2 into the N2 and O2
would have an effect on the temperature.
IF YOUR FALSE THEORETICAL CLAIMS WERE TRUE, THE AIR WITH
CONCENTRATIONS OF CO2 WOULD REACH HIGHER TEMPERTURE MUCH MORE RAPIDLY
AND MAINTAIN A HIGHER FINAL TEMPERATURE DUE TO THE ABSORPTION OF
ENERGY BY CO2 THAT YOU CLAIM.
IT IS YOUR CONTINUED AND STATED CLAIM THAT O2 AND N2 DO NOT ABSORB
THESE INFRARED FREQUENCIES. THIS IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE
AS THEIR ABSORPTION OF HEAT AND THEIR TEMPERATURE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN
CO2.
IF YOUR CLAIMS WERE TRUE, THIS PROPERTY OF CO2 WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IN
THE REAL WORLD, INSTEAD OF MERELY IN THE MINDS OF THE NUTS THAT SIT
AROUND AND THEORIZE OF ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF INFRAREDS BY CO2.
There is no effect which can be detected until the CO2 concentrations
become high enough that the difference in heat capacity becomes
noticable as the time to final temperature. This is of no measurable
effect at any small concentrations especially below 1%.
You still have no concept of energy equilibrium. The sun's energy has
a density at the distance of the earth. An object in this density of
radiation reaches a final temperature and will increase it's
temperature no more. It is at equilibrium with the energy it is
recieving which does not change. If it is not in equilibrium, it's
temperature changes.
Oh, by the way. Water vapor is an abnormal gas. A valid scientific
experiment puts careful controls on water vapor concentration.
HAHAHAhahahacrackpothahahcrackpothahahahahHAHAHAHa
Deatherage
Invasion of the Crackpots
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58a4d69ec69d19e5
Death-Rag said: Somtimes I talk neccessary analyses psuedo
evalutation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/086634847d9203b3
Death-Rag said: resposibility SKEPTISM wern't grenhouse gases recieved
analyses intitial grenhouse gases.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/cb3146cdcedd19dd
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3840a64f8bf17935
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/aa4c1b9fc293bd82
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/15926ce35b797481
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5597a473e27cacb8
Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4a38a6c8e3b292b3
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6abb9edf7934e28d
Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/442155a915794499
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/663a6c3e99db32e7
Death-Rag said: Crankpot grenhouse Farenheit bouyant continous
equivelent radition transfering dissapated habital grenhouse grenhouse
gase empircal arguement acutal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/04221b76dbe700f5
Death-Rag said: continous radition radites frauduent scientifc
analyses restricition My limited education in physics grenhouse
genertation continous mokecules grenhouse freqeucnies radition fouth
power equivelent recieving discription dissapates phyisicists.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2281f2fbe1a4ec80
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5673cdd6199a93b0
Death-Rag said: A true analyses grenhouse gases neccasary to adjuct
occuring culmulative.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0b561a597665319e
Death-Rag said: vegitation Grenhouse gase theory grenhouse gases,
grenhouse gases rule cocentrations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/953c4c4f50d37db0
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse
dildo.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/db1dd2300c052d7d
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227b4dd47714bfe8
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5f7cf0a57c32ba35
Death-Rag said: neccesities grenhouse gases intitial theory of
grenhouse gases
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/91115ba9958bbb82
Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3b1987f4ba6567a6
Death-Rag said: The analyses evaportation, inductrialization occured.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/161b7a7d02ffb63c
Death-Rag said: inagurated succedded nobel favoratism committiess
benifited widespead modifing.
Eric Gisse
[...]
No, seriously crackpot, do you even work anymore? Or are you a
fulltime crackpot?
T Wake
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174262338....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sadly it seems "very fulltime" is the proper answer...
Hanson Crackpot
> HAHAHAhahahacrackpothahahcrackpothahahahahHAHAHAHa
>
> Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174262338....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 18, 2:16 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > Or are you a
> > fulltime crackpot?
>
> Sadly it seems "very fulltime" is the proper answer...
Now that's funny, hahahahahahaha
Eric, the irritated altar boy just can't seem to understand the most
basic precepts of physics. Angular momentum and the fact that photons
have mass.
Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
mc^2. He derived this equation and theorem from experimental results
which demonstrated that light imparts momentum. These experiments were
later fully verified.
This concept that each photon has mass according to it's energy, is
not compatible with other theorists who postulate theory of waves.
Therefore they are in denial of the valid and experimentally proved
theorem of Einsteins. They, as denialists of Einstein, have developed
a false and inapplicable theory known as QM. No known value to science
has ever been demonstrated by this false theory which departs from
normal physical laws beyond the realm of direct scientific
investigation.
Einsteins theorem and equation has been found to be elementary to many
other tenets of physics, including the most basic tenet, the Law of
the Conservation of Matter and Energy. In fact it is the formalism of
this law, and Einstein is credited with this formalism.
When it was discovered that nuclei have a quantity of mass that is
missing from their whole number of protons and neutrons, Einstein
understood and pointed out that this mass was equivelent to the energy
of binding in the nucleus. This led to the development of the atomic
bomb and nuclear fission.
The highest mass defect is in iron56. All the elements and isotopes
above this have lower levels of mass defect or missing mass. Therefore
when a heavy atom such as uranium is split, it splits into components
which have a higher mass defect than the heavier uranium atom. This
level of defect is exactly equivelent to the energy that is released
in the nuclear fission. To fission iron would be impossible. The
resultant components would have lower mass defect and the reaction
would be endothermic.
All chemical reactions and the release or absorption of energy is also
dependent on the relation and fact from Einstein that all energy has
mass. In fact there is no tenet of physics that in actuality is not
based on this simple fact, quantified properly by Einstein.
Deatherage
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
T Wake
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174272693....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 6:05 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174262338....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 2:16 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
> Erics opinion. Fully worth two rabbit turds.
>>
>> > Or are you a
>> > fulltime crackpot?
>>
>> Sadly it seems "very fulltime" is the proper answer...
>
> Now that's funny, hahahahahahaha
>
Thanks. You didn't really need the rest of the post though.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 14, 8:25 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > > What if it ISN'T at equilibrium? Answer: "Never mind...."
>
> You didn't answer here, 'cause you don't know.
If it is not at equilibrium, the outgoing radiation is not equivelent
to incoming energy. If greater energ is entering than leaving the
system, this causes the density of the radiation in the system that
has an aperature of 4pi r^2, to increase. This increase in the density
of the radiation field is a fourth power to temperature. This is the
total energy which is directly proportional to the segment of energy
in 1 sq cm leaving the system. This increase in the density of the
energy causes the distribution to shift hvmax according to Planck and
Wien. This frequency maximum is most important to temperature because
it is the most common photon and most probable state of the
oscillator. Higher temperature causes higher intensity in all
frequencies including the low energy frequencies.
During the time of temperature change, the actual distribution may
vary considerably from the distribution for a temperature at
equilibrium. But increasing temperature means increasing density of
the radiation field so the energy of Boltzman Stefan equation holds,
which is irregardless of frequencies as it stipulates total energy
passing through the plane of 1 sq cm per second at the velocity of
light.
Boltaman Stefan is valid a 1 cm from the surface of a radiating body.
Otherwise calculation for luminosity must be done. A surface recieving
this density of energy, will absorb energy into it's heat capacity
until it reaches this equivelent temperature where it will then
radiate this same density of energy per sq cm at 1 cm from it's
surface.
Once the density of radiation leaving the system adjusts it's denstiy
for it's aperature in order to again equal the energy entering the
system, equilibrium is again achieved and the temperature is
stabalized and does not change. This concept of equilibrium is most
basic to thermodynamics and is very definable.
All insulation including vacuum insulation works on the property tha
the surface radiating will reach a lower temperature for some depth at
which the lower temperatuere has a lower rate of energy transfer by
conduction to the radiating surface.
Of course the earth is a very large system. The mass of the earth is
10^27 grams. Just the total heat capacity of the earth means changes
occur over very long timescale. But the earth has been in the relative
same solar radiation energy for a very long time. Mathematically, the
equilibrium is achieved. But fluctuations are very normal and
indicated in geological record.
>
>
>
> > > > equilibrium and outgoing radiation is restricted, temperature will
> > > > increase. As the temperature increases, the density per sq cm of the
> > > > radiation energy increases according to the Boltzman-Stefan equation.
> > > > At greater intensity per sq cm, again equilibrium will be reached.
>
> > > You keep saying that "equilibrium will be achieved", but you have no
> > > proof of this, just your conjecture.
>
> Again, your bluff has been called, and your ignorance shines through.
>
This is very funny. The point of this discusion is that for AGW to
claim anthropogenic effect and demand complete control over the
economy in order to prevent the disasters which they forsee, The
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON AGW. Part of this burden of proof is simple,
clinical demonstration of things that are claimed such as that O2 and
N2 do not absorb IR but CO2 does as you claim.
I see you with no reference to laboratory data with thermometers in
which this simple claim could easily be proved. Lack of this proof
goes as proof of the negative. Since the lack of extroidinary
temperature affect of CO2 concentrations disproves your assertions of
these special properties of CO2 to absorb lower energy frequencies of
light, i.e. infrared, thermal frequencies.
which causes a retention of energy and higher temperature much
different than O2 and N2..
The burden of proof is not upon me to prove the concept of equilibrium
which is about the oldest and most fundamental principles of
thermodynamics.
Where the hell is the BURDEN OF PROOF of the lame ass, folk lore
return to classical physics, abominated illegitimate offspring of QM,
GRENHOUSE THEORY OF TEMPERATURE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PLANET???
For that matter where are any valid thermodynamics at all in this
conjecture and bullshit??
Deatherage
Phineas T Puddleduck
1174437492.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "kdt...@yahoo.com"
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where the hell is the BURDEN OF PROOF of the lame ass, folk lore
> return to classical physics, abominated illegitimate offspring of QM,
> GRENHOUSE THEORY OF TEMPERATURE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PLANET???
> For that matter where are any valid thermodynamics at all in this
> conjecture and bullshit??
You still babbling your BS, Deathrag? Shame you don't understand proper
science.
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
The_Man
> On Mar 18, 6:05 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1174262338....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 18, 2:16 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> Erics opinion. Fully worth two rabbit turds.
Your opinion is worthless.
>
>
>
> > > Or are you a
> > > fulltime crackpot?
>
> > Sadly it seems "very fulltime" is the proper answer...
>
> Now that's funny, hahahahahahaha
>
> Eric, the irritated altar boy just can't seem to understand the most
> basic precepts of physics. Angular momentum
which is quantized
> and the fact that photons
> have mass.
which they don't.
>
> Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
> energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
> mc^2.
Not true. This expression is only true for a particle AT REST. Dildo,
are photons at rest?
> He derived this equation and theorem from experimental results
> which demonstrated that light imparts momentum. These experiments were
> later fully verified.
>
> This concept that each photon has mass according to it's
"ITS" !
> energy, is
> not compatible with other theorists who postulate theory of waves.
Yes it is. Ask Bohr. It's called "complementarity".
> Therefore they are in denial of the valid and experimentally proved
> theorem of Einsteins.
Thomas Young proved the wave theory of light as far back as 1800,
dolt. De Broglie showed that even MATTER has wave properties,
confirmed by the Davisson-Germer experiment. Maybe you';ve heard of
it.
> They, as denialists of Einstein, have developed
> a false and inapplicable theory known as QM.
Which is the most accurate and tested theory in the history of
science.
> No known value to science
> has ever been demonstrated by this false theory which departs from
> normal physical laws beyond the realm of direct scientific
> investigation.
"No known value", except for transistors, superconductivity, X-ray
determination of the structure of proteins, all properties of metals,
semi-conductors, insulatos, reation rates, mechanisms of electron
transfer, ability to computationally predict basically EVERY property
of EVERY substance..
yeh, other than THAT.
>
> Einsteins theorem and equation has been found to be elementary to many
> other tenets of physics, including the most basic tenet, the Law of
> the Conservation of Matter and Energy. In fact it is the formalism of
> this law, and Einstein is credited with this formalism.
And this formalism is entirely consistent with QM. In fact, Dirac
quickly applied SR to QM, and used the resulting equations to predict
anti-matter.
>
> When it was discovered that nuclei have a quantity of mass that is
> missing from their whole number of protons and neutrons, Einstein
> understood and pointed out that this mass was equivelent to the energy
> of binding in the nucleus. This led to the development of the atomic
> bomb and nuclear fission.
No shit.
>
> The highest mass defect is in iron56. All the elements and isotopes
> above this have lower levels of mass defect or missing mass. Therefore
> when a heavy atom such as uranium is split, it splits into components
> which have a higher mass defect than the heavier uranium atom. This
> level of defect is exactly equivelent to the energy that is released
> in the nuclear fission. To fission iron would be impossible. The
> resultant components would have lower mass defect and the reaction
> would be endothermic.
So what?
>
> All chemical reactions and the release or absorption of energy is also
> dependent on the relation and fact from Einstein that all energy has
> mass. In fact there is no tenet of physics that in actuality is not
> based on this simple fact, quantified properly by Einstein.
No shit. No tenet of physics is incompatible with QM, either.
>
> Deatherage
Hanson Shit Flinger Monkey
denstiy aperature stabalized tha temperatuere discusion forsee
extroidinary GRENHOUSE.
On Mar 20, 4:38 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If it is not at equilibrium, the outgoing radiation is not equivelent
> to incoming energy. If greater energ is entering than leaving the
> has an aperature of 4pi r^2, to increase. This increase in the density
> Otherwise calculation for luminosity must be done. A surface recieving
> until it reaches this equivelent temperature where it will then
> Once the density of radiation leaving the system adjusts it's denstiy
> for it's aperature in order to again equal the energy entering the
> stabalized and does not change. This concept of equilibrium is most
> All insulation including vacuum insulation works on the property tha
> which the lower temperatuere has a lower rate of energy transfer by
> This is very funny. The point of this discusion is that for AGW to
> economy in order to prevent the disasters which they forsee, The
> goes as proof of the negative. Since the lack of extroidinary
> GRENHOUSE THEORY OF TEMPERATURE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE
> Deatherage
equivelent energ aperature recieving equivelent denstiy aperature
stabalized tha temperatuere discusion forsee extroidinary GRENHOUSE.
Hanson Shit Flinger Monkey
wrote:
> On 21/3/07 00:38, in article
>
> <kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Where the hell is the BURDEN OF PROOF of the lame ass, folk lore
> > return to classical physics, abominated illegitimate offspring of QM,
> > GRENHOUSE THEORY OF TEMPERATURE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PLANET???
> > For that matter where are any valid thermodynamics at all in this
> > conjecture and bullshit??
>
> You still babbling your BS, Deathrag? Shame you don't understand proper
> science.
Or english.
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On 21/3/07 00:38, in article
>
> <kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Where the hell is the BURDEN OF PROOF of the lame ass, folk lore
> > return to classical physics, abominated illegitimate offspring of QM,
> > GRENHOUSE THEORY OF TEMPERATURE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PLANET???
> > For that matter where are any valid thermodynamics at all in this
> > conjecture and bullshit??
>
> You still babbling your BS, Deathrag? Shame you don't understand proper
> science.
>
back up your insults instead of your childish whining, twit???
Obviously a twit like you is stupid enough to think it is valid to say
earth would have an average -2F temperature based on calculation of
342 - .31 = 236Wm-2 or 254K. But this is bolstered by 'grenhouse
gases'.
A mean energy of 236W is not from the product of the average
temperature of 254K. Nor if this is the recieved energy, can it
produce this average temperature unless every square meter is exactly
the same temperature. This is due to the fourth power law for energy
to temperature according to Stefan. But the highly critical science
buffs like you accept this bullshit math and never calculate the
average of the energies is not equivelent to the energy of the average
temperature because it is from the dogma of the idiots that you trust
and the lies and fantasy you enjoy. And anyone that does not likewise
accept this bullshit must be called stupid. You guys have such
simplistic little idiot mentalities. Why don't you just get back to
your simplistic and relaxing life of repeating what you don't
understand and calling anyone stupid or kookasoid that doesn't suck
the same stale psuedo science turds that you do??
Science is based upon proof. Superstition is based upon supposition
and what a bunch of idiots may agree to be true. Something which can
be scientifically established also is the fact that charlatans like
yourself attend to their business of being the parasites they are upon
society with their false science and their lack of interest in actual
science and the truth.
Notice how you, eric, and demann refuse to acknowlege the fact that
photons have mass. Only because you cannot work it into your false
theory of waves. Manan ther cites some idiot from 1800. Classical
science had absolutely no validity until Planck and Einstein. And
academia has never forgotten this and done their best to write them
out of theoretical science.
PHOTONS HAVE MASS. There is countless direct scientific evidence of
this fact. The mann here gives a long rant in which he is invalid
with most of what he says. He repeats the same old lies that QM has
found actual application in real world science. Who can argue with
such liars as yourself??
You twits have virtually eliminated any valid science in the academic
world. If you get your AGW through it will be your own demise. What
society struggling to survive needs a bunch of idiots that sit around
and fantasize about scientific things and never make any actual
application to laboratory data or reality?? And then demand that
society give them a paycheck and feed them when they offer absolutely
nothing to society except for completely bogus scientific theory by
which they also seek control ??
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > and the fact that photons
> > have mass.
>
> which they don't.
>
> > Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
> > energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
> > mc^2.
>
> Not true. This expression is only true for a particle AT REST. Dildo,
> are photons at rest?
This is stupid. Your attempt with semantics to elude the simple fact
that photons have mass.
Light energy imparts momentum. This means that you take the quantity
of mass for each photon,,,m = E/c^2, multiply this by the velocity of
light, which is the velocity that this mass is traveling, in order to
determine this momentum. It is from these experiments that Einstein
derived the 'theorem of the inertia of energy', (1905), which states
that 'all energy has mass and it's associated momentum according to
the equation E = mc^2'.
This is called physics. It is developed from Issac Newtons
applications of mathematics to energy, motion and matter. What you do
is called 'irrational semantics', which you get from your
indoctrination into the dogma of Quantum Mechanics which has no basis
in the actual scientific data that Einstein used, and has been used to
verify his theorem.
Deatherage
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 21, 5:14 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > and the fact that photons
> > > have mass.
>
> > which they don't.
>
> > > Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
> > > energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
> > > mc^2.
>
> > Not true. This expression is only true for a particle AT REST. Dildo,
> > are photons at rest?
>
> This is stupid. Your attempt with semantics to elude the simple fact
> that photons have mass.
....so why hasn't that mass been determined despite decades of
trying? Why do physicists say that the photon is massless?
Oh, right - the scientists are stupid and the roofer who took a few
introductory courses in physics has it exactly right.
[snip remaining shit]
The_Man
> On Mar 21, 5:14 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > and the fact that photons
> > > have mass.
>
> > which they don't.
>
> > > Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
> > > energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
> > > mc^2.
>
> > Not true. This expression is only true for a particle AT REST. Dildo,
> > are photons at rest?
>
> This is stupid. Your attempt with semantics to elude the simple fact
> that photons have mass.
No, they don't. PLease post the citation for ANY experiment that found
the photon to ever have mass.
>
> Light energy imparts momentum. This means that you take the quantity
> of mass for each photon,,,m = E/c^2, multiply this by the velocity of
> light, which is the velocity that this mass is traveling, in order to
> determine this momentum. It is from these experiments that Einstein
No, Einstein DOESN't derive E=mc2 from experiments. If you can read,
take a look at "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy
content?". There is no mention of ANY experiment WHATSOEVER. The
equation is derive from SR and Maxwell's equations.
> derived the 'theorem of the inertia of energy', (1905), which states
> that 'all energy has mass and it's associated momentum according to
> the equation E = mc^2'.
That sentence does not appear in the paper. See here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
What Einstein ACTUALLY says is:
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c²"
The words "momentum" and "momenta" NEVER appear in this paper.
The connection of wave properties to momentum was done later by de
Broglie, about whom you are completely ignorant.
>
> This is called physics.
What YOU do is called "bullshit".
> It is developed from Issac Newtons
instead of "Isaac" Newton ?
> applications of mathematics to energy, motion and matter. What you do
> is called 'irrational semantics', which you get from your
> indoctrination into the dogma of Quantum Mechanics
which Einstein began with his interpretaion of the photoelectric
effect.
> which has no basis
other than being 100% correct. In cases where Qm disagrees with
Einstein, QM was ALWAYS right, and Einstein was ALWAYS wrong. So much
for the so-called "religion" of Einstein-worship.
> in the actual scientific data that Einstein used,
Einstein, as it turns out, didn't use any actual scientific data,
except Maxwell's equations (indirectly).
Ben Newsam
>And then demand that
>society give them a paycheck and feed them when they offer absolutely
>nothing to society except for completely bogus scientific theory by
>which they also seek control ??
Careful, your paranoia is showing.
T Wake
news:1174536930.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 5:14 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > and the fact that photons
>> > have mass.
>>
>> which they don't.
>
>>
>> > Modern physics is based upon Einsteins theorem of the inertia of
>> > energy in which he stated that all energy has mass according to E =
>> > mc^2.
>>
>> Not true. This expression is only true for a particle AT REST. Dildo,
>> are photons at rest?
>
> This is stupid. Your attempt with semantics to elude the simple fact
> that photons have mass.
OK then, Brains, what is the mass of the photon?
T Wake
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174535513.2...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> PHOTONS HAVE MASS. There is countless direct scientific evidence of
> this fact.
Cite away then, genius.
Vendicar Decarian
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote
> How did it come to be the case that a roofer thinks he understands
> quantum theory and climatology better than the entire scientific
> community?
It's the fumes. Same overall effect as huffing gasoline. Permanent brain
death.