climate change

[carl eto]

Climate Change
.
.
The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium that is melted into cylindrical pellets (1 cm x 1 cm) which are inserted into a 12 ft hollow steel tube where 226 tubes filled with uranium pellets are stacked to form a uranium fuel rod (750 lb); 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate heat (400°F) which produces the power of a nuclear power plants. Every six years the fuel rods are replaced during the refueling. The used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled using cooling pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of three reactors at each site; consequently, there are a total of approximately 1,320 nuclear reactors worldwide where roughly 910 reactors use a once-through cooling system that discharges thermodynamics pollution directly into the water source.
.
“IAEA figures show 45% of nuclear plants use the sea for once-through cooling, 15% use lakes, 14% rivers, and 26% use cooling towers.” https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx
.
Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of air has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and only .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2. Climate change is caused by the nuclear power plants' thermodynamic pollution that is discharged into the rivers, lakes and oceans since the heat capacity of water is six times greater than the heat capacity of the Earth's atmosphere (air). Water retains heat six times longer than the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, climate change is exacerbated by the 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that cooling pools (120°F) are cooling the depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water is discharged into the water source. A single active nuclear reactor core contains 75 tons of uranium fuel rods that are heated to the temperature of 400o F where the depleted uranium fuel rods are radiating heat at 30% capacity (120°F) in cooling pools. In the last 50 years, the world’s 1,320 reactors have produced 1.2 tons of depleted uranium fuel rods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium) which is equivalent to
.
.
(1.2 x 10^6 tons) x (.3) / 75 tons = 4,800 once-through cooled nuclear reactors (1)
.
.
operating at 100% capacity discharging thermodynamic pollution into the rivers, lakes and oceans which is causing climate change. It is argued that the depleted uranium fuel rods are stored without using cooling pools in a dry cask storage system where 37 depleted uranium rods (14 tons) are stack together and encased in concrete and steel but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were functioning at 40% capacity just before the refueling; consequently, the 37 depleted uranium rods within a steel cask would meltdown without a cooling pool.
.
“Water circulates through the pool, helping keep the rods cool and the pool temperature at around 49°C (120°F)……..Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000°C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).
.
Johnson, Jeff. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reexamine how to safely store a mountain of radioactive waste for decades to come. c&en chemical and engineering news. Vol 91, Issue 44. 2013.

[Michelle Africano]

carl eto wrote:

> The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a
> nuclear plant is uranium that is melted into cylindrical pellets (1 cm x
> 1

*/_climate_change_/* is a term describing *planetary_genocide*, you
imbecile.

better read here, how a stinking deplorable, *_lying_english_pig_*, gets
*_his_ass_kicked_*, by a woman. A */_good_looking_woman_/*. I am so proud
of this kind of women.

Watch Maria Zakharova completely destroy cowardly English propagandist.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Y6sC8q1undqc

[Michelle Africano]

carl eto wrote:

> The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a
> nuclear plant is uranium that is melted into cylindrical pellets (1 cm x
> 1 cm) which are inserted into a 12 ft hollow steel tube where 226 tubes

also, here is how the landing in "USA" is faked. *_That's_NOT_usa_*, but
*/_polakia_/*. These khakholes mazafaka are so stupid. Just another fake
manned moon landing. It strongly indicates, *_the_cocaine_gay_actor_* is
*_NOT_* in americaaa.

Cocainissimus lands in the US with a bunch of khakhol thugs
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/cJKQhpnG05iH

[carl eto]

“The energy of the solar radiation hitting the earth is 10000 times larger than the direct energy production *and* waste heat of **all** human sources.”
____________________________________________________

Yes, and there is an equilibrium that is being disturbed by thermodynamic pollution caused by nuclear power which is the primary cause of global warming or climate change.

[carl eto]

“The energy of the solar radiation hitting the earth is 10000 times larger than the direct energy production and waste heat of all human sources.”
____________________________________________________

Yes, but there is an equilibrium on the surface of the earth regarding the sun's intensity, old chap since at night the temperature of the Earth surly decreases. If the Sun's intensity was really hot and all the energy went into the ocean, the ocean would start to boil yet the oceans are relativity cool since you can surf at the beach and you have to cook fish to eat it unless you eat sushi which I do not eat since fish has worms but I also do not like the taste of beer or wine which include Champaign; consequently, one could project scientifically that the thermodynamics equilibrium of the earth's atmosphere is being disturbed by thermodynamic pollution caused by nuclear power which is the primary cause of global warming or climate change but if you want to believe in Santa Claus and UFOs be my guest. Ho Ho Ho.. Merry X-mass and a happy new year and remember to brush you teeth after eating all that candy and do not feed the dog sweets, maybe alittle. ha ha ha ha LOL.

[carl eto]

Waste heat from generating electricity in any form has nothing to do with Global Warming. It is caused by greenhouse gases trapping escaping radiation from the land and oceans.

The earth atmosphere does trap light since the earth atmosphere is open.

[The Starmaker]

Yesterday is the day Winter Begins if you check your calendar....


so if it is cold of a sudden it means it's not Summer.







carl eto wrote:
>
> Climate Change
> .

> .
>
> .
> “IAEA figures show 45% of nuclear plants use the sea for once-through cooling, 15% use lakes, 14% rivers, and 26% use cooling towers.” https://world-nuclea

> .

>
> .
> .
> (1.2 x 10^6 tons) x (.3) / 75 tons = 4,800 once-through cooled nuclear reactors (1)
> .
> .
> operating at 100% capacity discharging thermodynamic pollution into the rivers, lakes and oceans which is causing climate change. It is argued that the depleted uranium fuel rods are stored without using cooling pools in a dry cask storage system where 37 depleted uranium rods (14 tons) are stack together and encased in concrete and steel but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were functioning at 40% capacity just before the refueling; consequently, the 37 depleted uranium

> .
> “Water circulates through the pool, helping keep the rods cool and the pool temperature at around 49°C (120°F)……..Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000°C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).
> .
> Johnson, Jeff. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reexamine how to safely store a mountain of radioactive waste for decades to come. c&en chemical and engineering news. Vol 91, Issue 44. 2013.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[carl eto]

Climate Change





The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate heat which produces the power of a nuclear power plants. Every six years the fuel rods are replaced with new uranium rods during the refueling. The used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled and stored in onsite cooling pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of three reactors at each site; consequently, there are a total of approximately 1,320 nuclear reactors worldwide where roughly 910 reactors use a once-through cooling system that discharges thermodynamics pollution directly into the water source. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx

Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and only .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2. Climate change is caused by the nuclear power plants' thermodynamic pollution that is discharged into the rivers, lakes and oceans since the heat capacity of water is six times greater than the heat capacity of the Earth's atmosphere (air). In addition, climate change is exacerbated by the 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that cooling pools are cooling the depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is discharged into the water source. A single active nuclear reactor core contains 75 tons of uranium fuel rods (half-life 4.5 bil. yr), and, the depleted uranium fuel rods have a half-life of .7 billion years which represents the deplete uranium power of (.7 billion yr /4.5 billion yr) = .1555 or 16%. In the last 50 years, the world’s 1,320 reactors have produced 1.2 tons of depleted uranium fuel rods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium) which is equivalent to



(1/.7) x (1.2 x 106 tons) x (.155) / 75 tons = 3,543 once-through cooled nuclear reactors (1)



operating at 70% power that reactors are discharging thermodynamic pollution into the rivers, lakes and oceans which total equivalence is equal to (3,543 + 910) x 6 = 26,718 reactors with cooling towers discharging thermodynamic pollution (steam) into the Earth’s atmosphere. The depleted uranium fuel rods are said to be stored without using cooling pools in a dry cask storage system where 37 depleted uranium rods (14 tons) are stack together and encased in concrete and steel but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were functioning at less than 20% power just before the refueling; consequently, the 37 depleted uranium rods within a steel cask would meltdown without a cooling pool.

“Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000 °C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).

[Rico Amato]

carl eto wrote:

> The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a
> nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used
> in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate
> heat

here is the proof for */_meat_grinder_/*, allegedly killing the
"russians". The short khazar gypsy, cocaine gay actor *"belensky"*
destroying not only the "country he stole, but now *is_fucking_up_america*
big time.

Scared Ukrop Admits There Are ＂No-Retreat＂ Forces In Rear Lines Who ＂
Prevent＂ AFU From Retreating
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/ne2RXaYkuilp

fuck, the impertinent khazar *_"belenske"_* has no shame, nor dignity. He
gives a shit for killing own people. Much less for the life of all the
others. Historically, what was his name, that satanist khazar,
*Sabbatai_Zevi*. Wake up, you fucking stoopid, it's coming to your
country. You became a *_property_*. Forget about your kids and family.

American Mercenaries In Bakhmut Meatgrinder
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/lcHS3nh10YNq

Watch Congress Uncomfortably Laugh When Zelenskyy Makes This Odd Remark ｜
DM CLIPS ｜ Rubin Report
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/XBQQ3fFN1NY

Belensky's speech to Congress, kisses Pelosi, good investment. Putin,
Russia is fighting NATO. U⧸1
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/2brEJhnmEj0

[Rico Amato]

carl eto wrote:

> fuel rods are replaced with new uranium rods during the refueling. The
> used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled and stored in onsite cooling
> pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of

disgusting, the khazar gypsy is so short, you can't even see the khazar.
What a fucked up corporation, america. What a shame. They call a gay
actor, *lying_for_money* (that's what actors does), for *_"president"_*.
Killed the political parties, the newspapers etc, they shamelessly call
him *_"president"_*. Fuck you all, america.

Historic Nazi-Lensky's Standing Ovation Speech To Compromised U.S.
Congress In Full
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/zfBLkbB9wiTK

[The Starmaker]

carl eto wrote:
>
> Climate Change
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> (1/.7) x (1.2 x 106 tons) x (.155) / 75 tons = 3,543 once-through cooled nuclear reactors (1)
>
>
>
>
>

> “Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000 °C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).
>
>
>
> Johnson, Jeff. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reexamine how to safely store a mountain of radioactive waste for decades to come. c&en chemical and engineering news. Vol 91, Issue 44. 2013.

In California,

they'll have warm weather tomorrow...







gang wars and some

very overpriced real estate.







Up in the Pacific Northwest,

they'll have some very tall trees.







It will be clear across

the Rockies and the Great Plains.







But look out,

here comes trouble.







Oh, boy!

Front coming our way. Look out.







What will that mean to us

in the Three Rivers area?







One of these big blue things!

This cold, frigid, Arctic air.







This big mass out of the north.







It will meet up with all this moisture

coming out of the Gulf...







mix together at high altitudes

and cause some snow.







It won't hit us here in Pittsburgh.

It will push off and hit Altoona.







Close call.







Let's take a look

at the five-day forecast.







Nothing to be too scared about.







Bundle up warm,

but leave your galoshes at home.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote

> In California, they'll have warm weather tomorrow... gang wars, and some very overpriced real estate.

Real estate is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no such thing as overpriced real estate...

[The Starmaker]

https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/3-signs-home-overpriced

[kellehe...@gmail.com]

He is quoting from Groundhogs Day

[The Starmaker]

Paul Alsing wrote:

>
> On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 7:03:21 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote
> > >
> > > > In California, they'll have warm weather tomorrow... gang wars, and some very overpriced real estate.
> > >
> > > Real estate is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no such thing as overpriced real estate...
> >
> >
> > https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/3-signs-home-overpriced
>

> Yeah... so...? I stand by my claim... if someone is willing to meet your asking price, it is not overpriced.
>
> Pretty obvious, right?

Obvious you don't have an understanding of real estate and business...

If someone is willing to meet your overprice, they overpaid.

It means you're are a sucker.


If you want to bribe a police officer, or a judge, or a senator, or even a vice president of the united states...

the first lesson is not to...overpay.


You need to find out what his price is, then deliver the money to his hands.


You don't want to overpay because you gotta pay all these motherfuckes.


You gotta go home and pay your wife to have sex with you....(and she's probably overpriced...but you're willing to pay because you're a chump)

(but all the other guys weren't willing to pay her price)

So, you can have her!

She cost too much.


She's overpriced.


But since you were willing to meet her asking price...


she's not overpriced, she just found a sucker like you.


I could get her for free.

[Paul Alsing]

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[The Starmaker]

> - Dr. Fausi

That is something Dr. Fausi would say...


other Quotes by Dr. Fauci

Fauci muttered, “What a moron, Jesus Christ.” --Dr. Fauci

'Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science'. --Dr. Fauci


"Low-life trolls" --Dr. Fauci

[Paul Alsing]

But it is not, it was said by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a man with one of the highest IQs ever.

Who exactly is Dr. Fausi?

[The Starmaker]

I wrote "would" say, not 'did' say. And you woudn't know if he said it
or not. Boy are you dumb!

>
> Who exactly is Dr. Fausi?

He's your leader, isn't he?

'I represent science': Fauci claims

other Quotes by Dr. Fauci

Fauci muttered, “What a moron, Jesus Christ.” --Dr. Fauci

'Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science'. --Dr. Fauci


"Low-life trolls" --Dr. Fauci

You see, all scientist believe that all the rest of the human race are
low-lifes, morons, idiots, savages..aggressives stupidities.

also probably all women don't belong in a lab unless they are cleaning
ladies...

[thor stoneman]

Climate Change


The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate heat which produces the power of a nuclear power plant. Every six years the fuel rods are replaced with new uranium rods during the refueling. The used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled and stored in onsite cooling pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of three reactors at each site; consequently, there are a total of approximately 1,320 nuclear reactors worldwide where roughly 910 reactors use a once-through cooling system that discharges thermodynamics pollution into the water source. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx
Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere, that represents the heat trapped (stored) in the Earth’s atmosphere, has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and only .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2. The nuclear power plants' thermodynamic pollution that is discharged into the rivers, lakes and oceans which heated water has a the heat capacity six times greater than the heat capacity of the atmosphere (air). The heated oceans are shifting the thermodynamics equilibrium of the atmosphere which is causing climate change. In addition, climate change is exacerbated by the 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that cooling pools are cooling the depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is discharged into the water source. A single nuclear reactor core contains 75 tons of uranium fuel rods (half-life 4.5 bil. yr). The depleted uranium fuel rods have a half-life of .7 billion years which represents the deplete uranium power output of (.7 billion yr /4.5 billion yr) = .1555 or 16% while in the cooling pools. In the last 50 years, the world’s 1,320 reactors have produced 1.2 tons of depleted uranium fuel rods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium) which is equivalent to

(1/.7) x (1.2 x 10^6 tons) x (.155) / 75 tons = 3,543 once-through cooled nuclear reactors (1)

operating at 70% power that reactors are discharging thermodynamic pollution into the water source which total equivalence is equal to (3,543 + 910) x 6 = 26,718 reactors with cooling towers discharging thermodynamic pollution (steam) into the Earth’s atmosphere. The depleted uranium fuel rods are said to be stored without using cooling pools in a dry cask storage system where 37 depleted uranium rods (14 tons) are stack together and encased in concrete and steel but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were functioning at less than 16% power just before the refueling; consequently, the 37 depleted uranium rods (700 million yr half-life) within a steel cask would meltdown without a cooling pool.

“Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000 °C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson). https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i44/Radioactive-Waste-Safety.html

The estimated 910 once-through cooled nuclear reactors worldwide, and 1.2 tons of depleted uranium fuel rods are the primary cause of climate change.

[thor stoneman]

"This process slows down the escape of heat from the earth."

Heat does not escape the earth. At night the heat of the earth is reduced and the heated water has a heat capacity six time more than the earth atmosphere. Have you every been close to a nuclear power plant's cooling tower functioning at full blast? Then imagine 30,000 cooling towers running at full steam 24/7.

Genius is not being EXTRAORDINARILY smart but not being stupid.

When did climate change start?---the inception of nuclear power.

[whodat]

Climate change has existed since the formation of the earth. Humanity
is probably skewing the consequences that find roots in natural events.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 24.12.2022 um 05:25 schrieb Paul Alsing:

>>> "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
>>> - Dr. Fausi
>>
>> That is something Dr. Fausi would say...
>
> But it is not, it was said by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a man with one of the highest IQs ever.

No exactly, but close...

The guy which about Goethe had written was 'Dr. Faust'.

He (Faust) sold is sole to the devil and had some trouble afterwards.

Dr. Fausi apparently did that, too, but I'm not secure. Possibly he sold
his sole to more earthly entities.

> Who exactly is Dr. Fausi?
>

'...that is here the question'

(or was that Shakespear?)


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Well, not quite...

In an ideal market you would be right. But real estate markets are
dominated by sellers and high demands upon limitted supply.

The supply is so limitted, because only a very small portion of the
population own most of the land. These wealthy people also control politics.

If this would not be the case, then entire new cities could be build
somewhere, where there is enough space, to house all the people, who
cannot affort San Francisco, for instance.

But land owners usually like rising prices, hence do not like expansion
of the supply side.

This influences the markets by a shortage of living space, which people
actually need to survive.

Now also the demand side is influenced from the political side, which
increase the population by funneling new people into the markets.

Another influence is by withdrawing of actually avalible living space
from the market, to create shortage on the supply side.

The prizes could also be manipulated by selling and buying real estate
at very high prizes among the land owners, to create a certain 'prize
climate', which the general public could take for real.

Therefore, the real estate market is not a real market.


TH

[thor stoneman]

"Why do you ( carleto4157990662 ) say heat does not escape the earth? Everyday the earth is bathed in sunshine which heats it up."

This is why I say that theoretical scientists (physicists) are idiots since what you are spouting comes from their collective decrepit minds. Now, I will give you an example, a snake can catch a small naïve bird by charming them with their beautiful eyes which is want physicists are doing to people like you by charming them into thinking what is wrong is right since they have an underlining bias in that experimental theoretical physics experiments are funded by nuclear energy.

Now do not think that you are less smarter than a professor of physics a Harvard, MIT or Princeton since like I said previously they are idiots and since you are responding to this post you are smarter then they are since you have some balls whereas they have none, like playing tennis without tennis balls. You say "Everyday the earth is bathed in sunshine which heats it up." What part of the earth are you talking about? The ocean, the land or the air, it does make a difference which you are not investigating or thinking of since idiots are controlling your thought processes so that they can keep deceiving people and steal your money because if you thought of it more carefully you would realize that the idiots have been playing you as a fool. Do you not always here people say that the general public is stupid but if that were the case then that would mean the elites of this world are also stupid since it goes both ways. Now, you have to understand that making mistakes is the foundation of physics. Everything and I mean everything was discovered by mistake and not by theory.

To understand global warming you must understand what is causing heat?


Your statement: "Why do you ( carleto4157990662 ) say heat does not escape the earth? Everyday the earth is bathed in sunshine which heats it up."


Your statement implies that you do not understand what is causing heat in the atmosphere.

______________________________________________________________________________________________


Secondly, your statement: "Finally the claim that the small quantity of CO2 of approximately .04% in the atmosphere is insufficient to cause the effect claimed for it is just plain wrong."


Having a PhD from Harvard, Princeton, MIT or Berkeley does not allow a person to justify a statement by saying it is "plain wrong" since you have to give some reason, old chap. Why would such a small amount of CO2 matter and what about the heat capacity of air. If the earth's atmosphere was trapping excessive heat the heat capacity of the atmosphere would substantial increase. Thank you for post your opinions since I have learn a lot from you.

[thor stoneman]

"Climate change has existed since the formation of the earth. Humanity is probably skewing the consequences that find roots in natural events." (whodat https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... Zyx-BOEAFQ)


Brilliant think tank deduction Dr Watson, MD...but why are people so scared and concerned?


It's like being overweight, a smoker, diabetic and with high blood pressure and your doctor says you are going to die if you do not change your habits and you response by saying that death is a natural event.

[thor stoneman]

At 12,000 would bitcoin be dead and it will be interesting to see what the corporate exposure to cypto is in the January earning reports.

[The Starmaker]

"climate change" started when they changed it from the words...'global warming'.

(maybe you forgot)

But, if..IF you want to know that which you call "climate change" and when did it started..

it is caused by gravitational waves from the Black Holes.

Just as the black holes
gravitational waves
are causing the earth
to lose course of it's
magnetic poles and
are the REAL cause of
waht you call Climate Change,
or to change the climate...

but, it is also the reason why
BEES are disappearing...since bees use
the magnetic fields to...navigate.

Since the north magnetic pole is shifting to Siberia, so are the bees shifting,
and the weather.


But of course like always the STUPID scientist of the world are saying
Climate Change is making the bees disappear..stupid, stupid, stupid.

Scientist have their noses in Textbooks. (fraudalent information contained in academic books)



"Unusual weather we're having, ain't it?" --Wizard of Oz, 1939

[The Starmaker]

The plan is..
to remove ALL houses
from the market in the
United States...

and in place
they plan to build
apartment buildings
in it's place.

In other words, to get rid
of all surburban neighborhoods.

Then you can add
a billion to the population
of the United States.

Or ten billion....

[thor stoneman]

The dow always falls at the end of the year.

[thor stoneman]

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> The dow always falls at the end of the year.

Argo Blockchain PLC - ADR went from 12$ to 73 cents.

[Santos Anselmetti]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.12.2022 um 03:38 schrieb Paul Alsing:
>> Real estate is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. There
>> is no such thing as overpriced real estate...
>>
> Well, not quite...
> In an ideal market you would be right. But real estate markets are
> dominated by sellers and high demands upon limitted supply.

absolutely. Here we go, with some other new proofs.

Elon Musk Ousts Fauci: “Gain-of-Function Is Just Another Way of Saying Bioweapon”
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/elon-musk-ousts-fauci-gain-of-function-is-just-another-way-of-saying-bioweapon/

Zelenskyy Hires Globalist BlackRock CEO Larry Fink To Oversee Ukraine’s Money Laundering Scam
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/zelenskyy-hires-globalist-blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-to-oversee-ukraines-money-laundering-scam/

Hunting for Russians: How a Ukrainian law firm runs a campaign targeting ordinary people in Western Europe
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/568508-ukrainian-law-firm-russians/

liars *_english_pigs_* madrafakars,THEY LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING STONEHENGE HOAX HISTORY IS A LIE!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Ltg8E5Vxz1Yg

cacamerica kills humans premeditated, Big Pharma profits as White House controls COVID narrative
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/xDKRUPdmYb6q

Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.12.2022 um 20:34 schrieb thor stoneman:
> "Why do you ( carleto4157990662 ) say heat does not escape the earth? Everyday the earth is bathed in sunshine which heats it up."
>
> This is why I say that theoretical scientists (physicists) are idiots since what you are spouting comes from their collective decrepit minds. Now, I will give you an example, a snake can catch a small naïve bird by charming them with their beautiful eyes which is want physicists are doing to people like you by charming them into thinking what is wrong is right since they have an underlining bias in that experimental theoretical physics experiments are funded by nuclear energy.
>
> Now do not think that you are less smarter than a professor of physics a Harvard, MIT or Princeton since like I said previously they are idiots and since you are responding to this post you are smarter then they are since you have some balls whereas they have none, like playing tennis without tennis balls. You say "Everyday the earth is bathed in sunshine which heats it up." What part of the earth are you talking about? The ocean, the land or the air, it does make a difference which you are not investigating or thinking of since idiots are controlling your thought processes so that they can keep deceiving people and steal your money because if you thought of it more carefully you would realize that the idiots have been playing you as a fool. Do you not always here people say that the general public is stupid but if that were the case then that would mean the elites of this world are also stupid since it goes both ways. Now, you have to understand that making mistakes is the found
ation of physics. Everything and I mean everything was discovered by mistake and not by theory.
>
> To understand global warming you must understand what is causing heat?

Well, we have sunshine and that is warming up the earth.

But the 'mechanics' of sunshine are not well understood, because we
ownly know, how sunshine looks like within the atmosphere.

How the sun transports energy from the own position to ours, that is a
different story. But we could safely exclude, that it would look like
sunshine, if seen from a position in space far away from our home planet.

I have heard, that sun emmits actually so called scalar waves. And they
convert into light and heat in the upper atmosphere.

We have also a electro-magnetic connections, which work, as if magnetic
circulation would be 'frozen in' into the solar wind.

This causes enormous currents around the globe, known as Birkeland currents.

And then we have the solar wind, which consists of fast and tiny particles.

And last but not least we have also normal light and usual IR-radiation
(plus all sorts of other frequencies from the em-spectrum).

All this interacts with the atmosphere and the planet itself and by this
transports heat from Sun to Earth.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.12.2022 um 07:56 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 24.12.2022 um 05:25 schrieb Paul Alsing:
>
>>>> "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
>>>> - Dr. Fausi
>>>
>>> That is something Dr. Fausi would say...
>>
>> But it is not, it was said by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a man with
>> one of the highest IQs ever.
>
>
> No exactly, but close...
>
> The guy which about Goethe had written was 'Dr. Faust'.
>
> He (Faust) sold is sole to the devil and had some trouble afterwards.

(Actually meant was 'soul').

The 'Playmobil summery' of 'Faust, first part of the tragedy' can be
seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIY6xO7A7Qw


...

TH

[thor stoneman]

"Well, we have sunshine and that is warming up the earth. But the 'mechanics' of sunshine are not well understood, because we only know, how sunshine looks like within the atmosphere." (TH, sci.relativity at ttps://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RZyx-BOEAFQ)

What does looking have to do with the mechanism?

__________________________________________________________________


The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the air and water molecules which causes heat. Now it should be noted that the motion of the air and water molecules are localized and do not result in the heated air molecules to escape into outer space to dissipate the earth's atmospheric heat as believe by some people but of course not the reader since you are much much smarter then that. The dissipation of the atmospheric heat is caused when the sun sets which reduces the kinetic energy of the air and water molecules which is the mechanism that reduces the earth's atmospheric temperature. Proof: the coldest temperature of the Earth's surface occurs at dawn (daybreak -- not the dish soap).

[thor stoneman]

There are two types of nuclear reactors. One is the once-through cooled reactor and the other is the nuclear reactor that use a cooling towers which I will discuss next time.

[whodat]

Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 30.12.2022 um 01:54 schrieb whodat:

>> The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons
>> that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and
>> any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules
>> that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons
>> (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the
>> air and water molecules which causes heat.

This explanation is most likely wrong.

One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting
entities like particles.

But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta of
the em-radiation.

But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance
and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles.

...

>
> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space.
>

Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere.

A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know,
how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit.

But that was certainly not a very common experience.


TH

[whodat]

On 12/30/2022 4:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.12.2022 um 01:54 schrieb whodat:
>
>>> The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons
>>> that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and
>>> any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules
>>> that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons
>>> (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the
>>> air and water molecules which causes heat.
>
> This explanation is most likely wrong.

Whether it is right or wrong I did not write the above. Why did you
attribute it to me by editing?

> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting
> entities like particles.

So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long
lasting" in your lexicon?

> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta of
> the em-radiation.
>
> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance
> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles.

Raging confusion displayed here...

>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space.

This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering?

Here's what you took out:

"Well, we have sunshine and that is warming up the earth. But the
'mechanics' of sunshine are not well understood, because we only know,
how sunshine looks like within the atmosphere." (TH, sci.relativity at
ttps://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RZyx-BOEAFQ)

Ahhh. You were defending your error! You did write "we only know"
that implicates the whole human race. And you haven't figured out
that the difference in scattering is the primary difference between
light in space and light in our atmosphere.

> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere.

Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer.
Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to
experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who
have experienced cancer have reported what that's like?

Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about
how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet.

> A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know,
> how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit.
>
> But that was certainly not a very common experience.

Admit your error, you are human after all, no? And lets move on.

[thor stoneman]

"This explanation is most likely wrong. One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting
entities like particles but that would also 'materialize' energy, because photons are quanta of

the em-radiation. But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance

and not quantized into photons, which also do not behave like particles." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RZyx-BOEAFQ

_________________________________________________________

Light is composed of optic particles (photoelectric effect) that produce heat (sunlight) which is pretty much excepted. What is important is sunlight is producing heat by interacting with air molecules where the structure of the optic particles is not relevant to the discussion. Also, an expanding em field cannot form a particle structure of a photon that implies an em particle of light.

[thor stoneman]

"An expanding em field doesn't form a particle structure. An em wave does, when it gets "wrapped and trapped" in a double loop. See https://physicsdetective.com/how-pair-production-works/. I wrote it." https://physicsdiscussionforum.org/why-field-theory-is-wrong-t2403-s30.html

_______________________________________________________________________________


Is an em wave composed of an electromagnetic field of Faraday's law and do em radio waves expand? Graduate students in physics have submitted PhD thesis's on how to bound a field, so do not feel bad.

[thor stoneman]

> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting

> entities like particles.

So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long
lasting" in your lexicon?

> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta of

> the em-radiation.
>
> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance

> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles.


Raging confusion displayed here...https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/RZyx-BOEAFQ Whodat


___________________________________________________


Whodat, you make a good point but only one good point. It would be better to complete the answer to the second part. Also, could you tone down you responds. Personally, I am a sensitive person and do not need all this additional bile. I can understand a simple polite statement just a well. Thank you. Also, you do agree that sunshine produces heat which is the main point.

[thor stoneman]

There are two types of nuclear reactors. One is a nuclear reactor that uses a cooling tower to discharge the steam created by the reactor core where the heated uranium fuel rods are cool with water similar to a car engine that is cooled with a radiator and water pump. The original water of a nuclear power plant that is used to cool the reactor comes from a large river, lake or the ocean which after cooling the reactor core produces steam. The second type of reactor is a once-through cooled reactor that does not use cooling tower and uses the water from a river, lake or the ocean to cool the core then dumps the water directly back into the water source where 75% of the 1390 world wide nuclear reactors use a once-through cooling system (911 once-through cooled reactor worldwide) since they are cheaper and require less maintenance then using a cooling tower. The difference between a cooling tower reactor and once-through cooled reactor is that in a once-through cooled reactor's thermodynamic pollution (heat) is being directly discharged into the rivers and lakes that eventually drains into the ocean where water has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the atmosphere.

[thor stoneman]

Now, the earth's atmospheric temperature is in an equilibrium where the heating of the earth is offset by the cooling of the earth at night where the main reduction in the heat of the earth occurs at night when the temperature drops because of the lack of sunlight since sun light is heating the earth. This balance is being offset by nuclear power since the described once-thought cooled reactors are dumping thermodynamics pollution into the oceans where the heated oceans are causing climate change. It is believed that the atmospheric temperature rise is causing the change in the weather and the sea level rise but the ocean has a more profound effect on the weather then the earth's atmosphere since 72% of the earth's surface is covered with water. The 911 once through nuclear reactors world wide are directly dumping thermodynamic pollution into the oceans that has a heat capacity six times that of the earth's atmosphere; therefore, an enormous amount of heat water is being trapped near the surface of the oceans since the heat capacity of the ocean water is trapping the heat six time more than the atmosphere. The beginning of climate change began with inception of nuclear power. Ironically, the person that manifested the green house effect, not the originator, but got worldwide attention was a high school student his first name was Ed and latter he became an engineer major at sac state and I told a physical chemistry class (1982) with him but he only came to class to take the tests. So, a high school student is the main originator of climate change.

[thor stoneman]

Is an em wave composed of an electromagnetic field of Faraday's law? Do em radio waves expand? A graduate students in physics (Princeton) has submitted PhD thesis on how to bound a field, so do not feel bad. Himanshu Khanchandani : Quantum Field theory at the Boundary. Certainly you can mathematically do practically anything in physics but the physical structure (expanding em field) has precedence. Plus, you did not address the especially important question regarding Faraday's induction law and light in which Faraday's law is mutually exclusive with light, unless you have some other physical proof which I will be enthusiastically waiting for a completely responds to my humble request. Happy new year, plus, hugs and kisses to everyone especially if you are a cutie pie and remember do not drink and drive, cutie pie, 🚔🎛

[thor stoneman]

In war soldiers always commit atrocities. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Plus, the fire bombing of Japan and the bombing of the German civilians. Let set a date and say that the boundary line on that day are the boundary of Ukraine-Russia. Least as January 23 , 2023 would be a good day, it would be like the penalty kicks of the world cup and very exciting since we got some serious problem that we need to solve and Putin would be excellent at solving this problem which would be penance for his mistake but maybe human extinction is inevitable. We need to find the deplete uranium, dumped in the oceans, then retrieve it then melt granite and mix the melt the deplete uranium with the granite to 6% then store it in then desert 3,999 meter underground so no one will every try to build a house or wall out of it. Thinking about human extinction===I was thinking that human cannot live without gravity since the renal and circulatory system is based on gravity and the ISS is probably fake. How could the ISS be propagating at 11 km/s around the earth. If it hit a small screw the ISS would have a hole in it. Certainly a person can live lying down for a long time but zero gravity, come on....not for very long and after a month of zero gravity, back on earth, you would suffer badly and die of a heart attack.

[whodat]

When taking on the mantle of teaching others what you consider to be
good manners it would be generally helpful if you were to learn and
actually use the citation tools that are as old here as Usenet itself.

I speak from experience because I was participating before "the great
renaming."

Also, where it comes to your attempts to teach me to tone down my
replies let me suggest that you adjust your attitudes where it comes to
participating in Usenet. Your assessment that "bile" is present in my
posting displays as much raging confusion as the post to which I was
responding. As has been held for decades in Usenet discussions, if the
heat is too much for you it is best to get out of the kitchen.

Please take note that I am one of the tamest posters in the sci
newsgroups. Warmest regards and don't let the door slam you in the
ass on your way out.

[whodat]

On 12/30/2022 5:25 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> In war soldiers always commit atrocities. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Plus, the fire bombing of Japan and the bombing of the German civilians. Let set a date and say that the boundary line on that day are the boundary of Ukraine-Russia. Least as January 23 , 2023 would be a good day, it would be like the penalty kicks of the world cup and very exciting since we got some serious problem that we need to solve and Putin would be excellent at solving this problem which would be penance for his mistake but maybe human extinction is inevitable. We need to find the deplete uranium, dumped in the oceans, then retrieve it then melt granite and mix the melt the deplete uranium with the granite to 6% then store it in then desert 3,999 meter underground so no one will every try to build a house or wall out of it. Thinking about human extinction===I was thinking that human cannot live without gravity since the renal and circulatory system is based on gravity and the ISS is probably fake. How could the ISS be propagating at 11 km/s around the earth. If it hit a small screw the ISS would have a hole in it. Certainly a person can live lying down for a long time but zero gravity, come on....not for very long and after a month of zero gravity, back on earth, you would suffer badly and die of a heart attack.

What does this have to do with physics?

[Thomas Heger]

em-radiation is not composed from particles called 'photons'.

Photons are not tiny things, which in sum build em-waves.

It is a little more complicated. In my view 'particle' and 'photon'
denote different aspects of the same thing.

The photon is wavelike and the particle (well...) 'particle-like'. But
these are not different things, but certain states of a so called
'quantum field'.

The em-radiation oscillates between these two states like waves on the
ocean oscillate between valleys and wave crests.

Both look different, but are made from the same water.



TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 30.12.2022 um 17:57 schrieb whodat:
> On 12/30/2022 4:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 30.12.2022 um 01:54 schrieb whodat:
>>
>>>> The heating of the earth, caused by the sun, is produce by photons
>>>> that are interacting with the air molecules or water molecules, and
>>>> any object that the photons encounter. The air and water molecules
>>>> that contact the sunlight (photons) are affected by the photons
>>>> (energy) which results in the increases in the kinetic energy of the
>>>> air and water molecules which causes heat.
>>
>> This explanation is most likely wrong.
>
> Whether it is right or wrong I did not write the above. Why did you
> attribute it to me by editing?
>
>
>> One reason to think so is, that you regard photons as real lasting
>> entities like particles.
>
> So who was the "YOU"??? And is billions of light years not "long
> lasting" in your lexicon?

Your complain is about a very common habit in the UseNet.

I have wrote a comment to something, which was not written by you, but
by somebody else, who had written something, that you have quoted.

Usually this is regarded as acceptable, because the news-reader provides
enough information to connect a quote to the correct author.

But here you complained, that I had answered to something, what you
haven't written.

Well, yes, the fact is true, but I still regard it as a legal behaviour,
because I have not said, that you wrote, what I have quoted.

>> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta
>> of the em-radiation.
>>
>> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance
>> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like particles.
>
>
> Raging confusion displayed here...

No, it's a statement, to which you apperently do not agree.

In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think, that
my statement is wrong and in which aspect.

>
>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in space.
>
> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering?

I can quote whatever I want to quote.

Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written.

But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write about.

...

>
>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere.
>
>
> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer.
> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to
> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who
> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like?

This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans
usually do not see sunshine in outer space.

> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about
> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet.

Tell this to the IPCC.

>> A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know,
>> how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit.
>>
>> But that was certainly not a very common experience.
>
> Admit your error, you are human after all, no? And lets move on.
>

Ok, I admitt my error.
(btw: which one?)

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.12.2022 um 21:24 schrieb The Starmaker:

>
> But of course like always the STUPID scientist of the world are saying
> Climate Change is making the bees disappear..stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> Scientist have their noses in Textbooks. (fraudalent information contained in academic books)
>

I have started with Eeinstein's article of 1905, but continued with a
mathbook for physicists and made comments into that.


I found, that the math they teach to physics students is full of errors,
too.

It is like a coordinated brainwashing, which is applied to futur
scientist and comes from different angles.

Math is one of these 'containers', by which BS is stuffed into the
brains of the students.

It's a fraudulent scheme and to the great disadvantage of the students.

But usually, young students in their first weeks at a college have
little or no defense against fraudulent math.

Later they become used to it and much later they forget, why they
actually wanted to study physics.

This causes kind of 'zombification', which is apparently a requirement
to be selcted into the club of the few, who have a right to earn their
bread with science and eventually get a glimps at the real physics,
which is hidden somewhere in deep caves and away from the young students.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 31 December 2022 at 09:34:03 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.12.2022 um 21:24 schrieb The Starmaker:
>
> >
> > But of course like always the STUPID scientist of the world are saying
> > Climate Change is making the bees disappear..stupid, stupid, stupid.
> >
> > Scientist have their noses in Textbooks. (fraudalent information contained in academic books)
> >
> I have started with Eeinstein's article of 1905, but continued with a
> mathbook for physicists and made comments into that.
>
>
> I found, that the math they teach to physics students is

The Shit is not any math, though they like to pretend it.

[whodat]

Obviously the standard form of Usenet attributions understood and
correctly used by millions of people is too complicated for you. But
then you are off in your own little universe anyway as is clear from
many/most of your postings.

>>> But that would also 'materialise' energy, because photons are quanta
>>> of the em-radiation.
>>>
>>> But that would be a really bad idea, because energy is not a substance
>>> and not quantised into photons, which also do not behave like
particles.
>>
>>
>> Raging confusion displayed here...
>
> No, it's a statement, to which you apperently do not agree.

You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that
reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above.
Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further.

> In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think,
that my statement is wrong and in which aspect.

If politeness actually worked I would be using it. Even clear insult
in the reductio ad absurdum genre barely puts a dent into your
misapprehensions.

>>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in
space.
>>
>> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering?
>
> I can quote whatever I want to quote.

> Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written.

> But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write
about.

And as such I have every right to criticize it as I wish. I did that and
here you are whining about it.

>>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere.

>> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer.
>> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to
>> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who
>> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like?
>
>
> This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans
usually do not see sunshine in outer space.

Why didn't you say that instead of making the incorrect case that you
did? This discussion would have taken a different tone had you been
clear from the beginning. I hasten to add that you are still wrong.

>> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about
>> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet.


> Tell this to the IPCC.

If this were a legal proceeding my correct response at this point would
be, "argues facts not in evidence." Are we to guess precisely what that
comment means because it sure isn't clear as stated. And you do this
sort of thing all the time. I suspect that you don't know any better,
and that makes you someone best not to enter into a discussion with.

>>> A few humans have left the surface of planet Earth and actually know,
>>> how sunshine looks like, if seen from a spaceship in orbit.
>>>
>>> But that was certainly not a very common experience.

Much, if not most, of what humanity accepts regarding "scientific fact"
has not been experienced by the majority of humans. Better said, those
things are not a very common experience. Quite frankly what you've done
here as you have in many of the arguments you present is you have moved
the goalposts. It is high time you stood down long enough to study the
formal fallacies and check your work to make sure you aren't violating
them.

A good starting point is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy>

Every year lightening kills about 1000 people. Does that have to be a
common experience for the rest of us to understand and accept that? Of
course not. Your fallacious arguments are for the sake of argument
along, as I've stated before. In that you are merely a variation of
"Starmaker" who does the same sort of thing with less class.

>> Admit your error, you are human after all, no? And lets move on.
>>
> Ok, I admitt my error.
> (btw: which one?)

Having said that you shouldn't wonder why you cannot gather a consensus.

But then I never thought that ordinary human behavior would be your
goal.

[thor stoneman]

em-radiation is not composed from particles called 'photons'. Photons are not tiny things, which in sum build em-waves. It is a little more complicated. In my view 'particle' and 'photon' denote different aspects of the same thing. The photon is wavelike and the particle (well...) 'particle-like'. But these are not different things, but certain states of a so called 'quantum field'.

TH (https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics ... Zyx-BOEAFQ Dr. Thomas Heger 12:09 AM (14 hours ago)

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Planck's photon is an electromagnetic photon (resonator or em standing wave).

"In any case the theory requires a correction, and I shall attempt in the following to accomplish this on the basis of the theory of electromagnetic radiation which I developed." (Planck, Intro).

Next, you are implying wave-particle photons but the destruction of wave-particle photons to form the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern violates energy conservation. Plus, you use a quantum field argument which begs the question how can an expanding electromagnetic field be used to represent a quantum or particle structure.

[thor stoneman]

"The existence of the Aether has been in dispute since the famous MMX was interpreted by Albert Einstein to mean that it was not detectable."

Your statement is incorrect since Einstein uses the reversal of MMX to justify the existence of the ether, composed of matter, which vacuum definitively proves does not physically exist.

"Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether;" (Einstein7, Lecture, 1920).

[thor stoneman]

Now, élite climate scientists at Harvard, MIT Princeton and Berkeley are assuming that the earth's atmosphere is a large balloon where the temperature of the air within the balloon increases with the increase in the concentration of CO2 but the earth's atmosphere is much more complicated since the balloon model is entirely omitting the effects of the earth's ocean that covers 73% of the surface of the earth, the plants on the surface of the earth and even the intensity of the sun that is heating the earth which omission is because of man's enormous ego where since the most important part of climate change is the effect on man and not on the environment; therefore, scientists assume that the atmosphere is the main entity that is causing climate change since climate change is affecting the weather and humans only care about how things effect humans and not the environment.

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

If climate change is caused by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere then why is the more than 12 degree increase in the north pole's average temperature not accompanied with a 12% increase in the CO2 levels at the north pole? The reason is because the heated oceans are causing climate change not the CO2 levels. In addition, scientists (theoretical physicists) are extremely superficial and their ostensible theories and beliefs do not look deeply into what was written in the past. The past to them is what ever they say at the present, right or wrong, to justify their theory that they spout as fact.

To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. An always assume that the first solution is always incorrect and that mistakes are the foundation of scientific discovery. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat:

>
> You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that
> reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above.
> Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further.

You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the
consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my concern.

>
> > In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think,
> that my statement is wrong and in which aspect.
>
>
>
> If politeness actually worked I would be using it. Even clear insult
> in the reductio ad absurdum genre barely puts a dent into your
> misapprehensions.
>

Politeness is not based on politness on the other side. You are either
polite or you are not.

I personally could also reply with insults, in case I wanted to do that,
but actually I don't.

But the UseNet is a tough place and I received thousands of really nasty
replies, which were full of hate and insults.

So, what shall one do?

Actually it is a good idea to stay calm, polite and on the topic.

>
> >>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in
> space.
> >>
> >> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering?
> >
> > I can quote whatever I want to quote.
>
> > Your statement is still present in the article, which you have written.
>
> > But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write
> about.
>
>
>
> And as such I have every right to criticize it as I wish. I did that and
> here you are whining about it.

Do what you think you should. Your activities are yours and you are
responsible for them, not me.

But for my activities I'm responsible and you are not.

>
>
> >>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere.
>
> >> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of cancer.
> >> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to
> >> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those who
> >> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like?
> >
> >
> > This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans
> usually do not see sunshine in outer space.
>
>
> Why didn't you say that instead of making the incorrect case that you
> did? This discussion would have taken a different tone had you been
> clear from the beginning. I hasten to add that you are still wrong.

I personally think, that sunshine in space is a different type of wave,
which are called 'scalar waves', and that these waves are only converted
into sunshine inside the atmosphere.

We humans usually do not leave the atmosphere, hence cannot check,
whether or not my claim is correct (or not).

The picture is therefore: the sun emmits something, that causes sunshine
here on Earth, but isn't sunshine in space. Inbetween Sun and Earth
energy has other forms than what we see here on planet Earth.

>
>
> >> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information about
> >> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as yet.
>
>
> > Tell this to the IPCC.
>
>
> If this were a legal proceeding my correct response at this point would
> be, "argues facts not in evidence." Are we to guess precisely what that
> comment means because it sure isn't clear as stated. And you do this
> sort of thing all the time. I suspect that you don't know any better,
> and that makes you someone best not to enter into a discussion with.
>

I personally think, that IPCC is the 'head of the snake' and produces
questionable theories, which were created to support something called
'New World Order' by extracting money from the general public for
'protection' (against climate change).

These theories include something commonly called 'andropogenic climate
change by CO2'.

I regard this theory as propaganda of a self-proclaimed 'elite', which
mocks the general public, while attempting to extract money for 'CO2 trade'.

I meant, that CO2 is the wrong stuff and 'CO2 protection' is like
'barking up the wrong tree'.

(The real stuff to worry about is water).

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.01.2023 um 00:42 schrieb thor stoneman:

> To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem.

This correct and very important!

The main issue with CO2, that concentrating all energies on this
substance would cause, that all other issues were not covered.

But if CO2 is 'barking up the wrong tree', than absolutely nothing would
happen, if we reduce CO2.

This by itself wouldn't be dangerous, only a waste of money, time and
efforts.

But if something else does in fact cause the real trouble in the mean
time and the real problems receive not attention, than wrong activities
for an extended time can cause severe trouble.


I personally think, that clime-change is caused mainly by urbanisation,
agriculture and deforestation.

These all have influence on vegetation and on how much water is
evaporated on the land.

This evaporated water on land has a mayor impact on clouds formation
over land and that on gorund temperatures.

If land is seeled off, deforested and turned in to agricultures, than
much more rain will simply run down into rivers and into the oceans.

But the oceans contain already enough water, hence lost water on land
will be lost from the water cycle. And that effect will cause less
clouds and that hotter soil.

This is a very simple mechanism, but entirly independent of CO2.

The means to stop it would certainly include rebuilding of forests and
protection of certain areas against conversion into land for agriculture.


TH

[Doodnath Sarti]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat:
>
>> You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that
>> reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above.
>> Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further.
>
> You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the
> consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my
> concern.

he, this noname */_whodat_/*, acts apparently like _the_wife_part_ in a
_gay_couple_. In many countries, illegal still.

[Thomas Heger]

I like quaternions and a certain branch of mathematics 'called geometric
algebra'.

One of the pioneers of the use of this concept in physics was David
Heestenes.

But for decades his works was regarded as very exotic stuff from the far
end of science.

In common books about general relativity, for instance, a different type
of math is tought. This math is very strange in my oppinion.

For instance I dislike the use of superscripts for indices. (That space
should be reserved for exponents).

This strange habit makes it very difficult to say, if x² means x*x or a
second x variable with the index two.

Another strange habit is something like y=y(x).

This sounds familliar, but one y is an dependent variable and the other
y (in y(x) ) is the name of a function.

These are two different types of mathematical objects, hence cannot
possibly be equal. Therefore the one y is not equal to the other y,
while indistinguishable from the apperance.

It is therefore required, to distiguish different types of objects by
certain signs, like e.g. a bold font or little arrows over vectors.

Another issue is the missing separation between math and physics.

I would like math to provide mathematical tools and physics to connect
them to the real world.

In other words: math books for physicists should not discuss physical
questions, while physics books should not attempt to create new forms of
math.



TH

[whodat]

Having read your entire offering I find there is only one appropriate
response.


BURP!

Goodbye.

[whodat]

It is simply amazing how many ways this gay shiteating teenager (or
preteen) finds to display what a fool he is.

[thor stoneman]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:21:07 AM UTC-8, whodat wrote:

Saying radio waves do not expand is patently incorrect. Also, you say that you do not understand the question regarding Faraday's law. I will simplify the question by asking: "is Faraday's induction effect emitting light?" Plus, Einstein's GR (gravity) is based on Maxwell's equations.

[thor stoneman]

"No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions."

Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light (photons).

[thor stoneman]

"No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions."

Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light, X-rays or gamma rays (photons).

[thor stoneman]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:02:39 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> "No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions."
>
> Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light (photons).

Also, remember when depict diffraction, the destruction of wave-particle photons to form the dark fringes of the diffraction effect violates energy conservation.

[The Starmaker]

thor stoneman wrote:
>
>
>
> “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
>
> If climate change is caused by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere then why is the more than 12 degree increase in the north pole's average temperature not accompanied with a 12% increase in the CO2 levels at the north pole? The reason is because the heated oceans are causing climate change not the CO2 levels. In addition, scientists (theoretical physicists) are extremely superficial and their ostensible theories and beliefs do not look deeply into what was written in the past. The past t
>

> To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. An always assume that the first solution is always incorrect and that mistakes are the foundation of scientific discovery. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes.

Yesterday it wasn't raining and now today it started to rain! Whats
going??


It never rains in southern california
but man it's pouring






--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:19:51 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:

> Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light, X-rays or gamma rays (photons).

Perhaps you should actually learn just what a photon is before just guessing...

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-photon#:~:text=Radio%20waves%20and%20microwaves%3B%20infrared,at%20work%20all%20around%20you.

"Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons."

[whodat]

On 1/1/2023 5:56 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 4:21:07 AM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>
> Saying radio waves do not expand is patently incorrect. Also, you say that you do not understand the question regarding Faraday's law. I will simplify the question by asking: "is Faraday's induction effect emitting light?" Plus, Einstein's GR (gravity) is based on Maxwell's equations.

No attributions or context yields no reply. I do not recall having made
such statements directly. Furthermore none of the above sounds like
anything I would say.

You are playing with yourself in every context possible.

[whodat]

On 1/1/2023 6:02 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> "No. Electromagnetic waves are photons. Each is akin to a soliton. It keeps going through space without dissipating. What people think of as expanding radio waves consist of lots of photons emitted in all directions."
>
> Your statement is violating common sense since radio waves are not emitting light (photons).

Once again, whose statements?

[thor stoneman]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

"Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons."

This statement does not make any sense since radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays are not emitting light (the stuff that you can see in the dark).

[thor stoneman]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

"Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons." (A joint Fermilab/SLAC publication). https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... ound%20you

[thor stoneman]

“To solve a problem you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem.” (Me).

This correct and very important! The main issue with CO2, that concentrating all energies on this substance would cause, that all other issues were not covered. But if CO2 is 'barking up the wrong tree', than absolutely nothing would happen, if we reduce CO2. This by itself wouldn't be dangerous, only a waste of money, time and efforts. But if something else does in fact cause the real trouble in the mean time and the real problems receive no attention, then wrong activities for an extended time can cause severe trouble. (Dr. Thomas Heger, Harvard PhD physics).

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/1/23 6:20 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> when depict diffraction, the destruction of wave-particle photons to
> form the dark fringes of the diffraction effect violates energy
> conservation.

This is wrong. Diffraction minima are caused by an absence of photons,
not "destruction" of any. Energy is conserved, because the photons are
simply directed into diffraction maxima.

You really should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

While those EM radiations are not VISIBLE light, they are still modeled
using photons, which are the gauge boson of the electromagnetic field.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/1/23 8:20 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> [... CO2]

Again you merely display your colossal ignorance.

CO2 does not significantly absorb visible light and shorter wavelengths,
but it does absorb infrared (IR) light. Since the solar spectrum peaks
in the visible, most solar energy gets to the ground where much of it is
absorbed -- that heats the ground and causes the radiation of IR. The
solar radiation that is reflected by the ground mostly goes up through
the atmosphere and is radiated into space, so it does not heat the
earth. But the IR radiated by the ground is largely absorbed by the CO2
in the atmosphere, which heats the upper atmosphere, which re-radiates
more IR [#]. That re-radiated IR bounces around in the upper atmosphere;
some is radiated out into space (not heating the earth), but much of it
is radiated down to the ground where the process repeats. The net result
is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less IR is radiated into space,
so the atmosphere and planet are heated more (compared to less CO2).

[#] This re-radiation is essentially isotropic -- the
portion going up can be absorbed by CO2 and the cycle
repeats, or it can escape into space.

Note that the glass used in a greenhouse has a similar absorption
spectrum -- most solar energy comes in, but much of it is absorbed
inside the greenhouse and in the glass. The result is that the
greenhouse warms up due to the energy balance of the solar radiation
that hits it. That is why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"; other
important ones are water vapor and methane.

The overall energy balance of earth is the difference between two truly
ENORMOUS amounts of energy: solar energy incoming, and radiated energy
going into space. Small differences in this balance can have large
effects on the temperature of the atmosphere and planet, and that is
what we are seeing over the past half-century or so.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

I forgot to mention that as the planet's temperature increases, more
energy is radiated into space for two reasons: a) the total amount of
radiation is increased, and b) the mean wavelength of the radiation
decreases, putting more of it into a transparent band of the atmosphere.
The incoming solar energy is essentially fixed (on the short term,
<1,000 years). So for any amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
there will be an equilibrium temperature, but that temperature will
increase when there are more greenhouse gasses present.

[Venus has A LOT more greenhouse gasses in its
atmosphere, and it has reached an equilibrium
temperature ~ 847 F / 453 C (!). Of course it
also receives more solar energy....]

There are LOTS of other variables and details involved, but today the
primary story is as outlined above. Today earth is warming at an
unprecedented rate, mostly due to human-induced emission of CO2 and
methane. Unfortunately, natural processes could suddenly exceed human
emissions, causing a sudden and disastrous heating: volcanic activity
could release lots of CO2, warming ocean floor could release lots of
methane, and melting permafrost could release lots of CO2 and methane.
We just don't know whether or when such "tipping points" might be
reached (there are others, such as disruption of ocean currents). There
are also known changes in earth's orbit that will affect solar heating,
but they are thousands of years away.

Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

I think, that 'what is a photon' is quite a good question.

But I do not agree to most answers and think, that photos can turn into
electrons and vice versa. It goes like this:

A photon is kind of wave packet and can be emitted from atoms.

Now photons have a helical structure and electrons circle around a core.
These circles could be 'stretched' and turn an electron into a helical
wave packet (aka photon).

The other way round is also thinkable, when such a packet smashes
against something, what compresses the packet to a circle again, what
turns light into electrons.

Therefore, electron and photon have essentially the same structure, but
one is part of an atom and one in motion.

From this would follow, that photons and electrons are not real lasting
entities, but part of larger and more complex structures and can only
pop up occasionally in the form of light or charge.

About atoms themselves I assume, that electron and proton are in fact
one thing and build together a structure of a standing rotation wave.
These structures have occasionally the form of a so called
'tri-foil-knot' where these foils build what is called 'quarks'.

So, in fact, particles are parts of larger structures and pop up in
different forms and unpredictable places and are not real, lasting and
separate entities.

They are therefore not defined by realness or separation, but by their
particular form, which is a helical screw in case of a photon.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Most of the greenhouses worldwide are made from plastic, which is almost
entirely transparent for IR.

Therefore, it is very questionable, if the effect called 'greenhouse
effect' does actually occur in real greenhouses.

But a gas cannot immitate glas, anyhow, because glas has a feature,
which no gas can have:
glas maintains its form.

CO2 on the other hand cannot possibly stop convection (what means:
transport of thermal energy by transport of the heated medium).

In real green-houses the main effect is not what you wrote, but the
prevention of convection by a stable but transparent membrane.

It is not particularily important, from which material this shield is
made, as long as it is transparent.

That's why millions of greenhouses worldwide are made from plastic
foils, which is much cheaper than glas.

>> The overall energy balance of earth is the difference between two
>> truly ENORMOUS amounts of energy: solar energy incoming, and
>> radiated energy going into space. Small differences in this balance
>> can have large effects on the temperature of the atmosphere and
>> planet, and that is what we are seeing over the past half-century or
>> so.
>
> I forgot to mention that as the planet's temperature increases, more
> energy is radiated into space for two reasons: a) the total amount of
> radiation is increased, and b) the mean wavelength of the radiation
> decreases, putting more of it into a transparent band of the atmosphere.

Wouldn't increased emission of IR reduce the temperature on the surface
of planet Earth?

> The incoming solar energy is essentially fixed (on the short term,
> <1,000 years). So for any amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
> there will be an equilibrium temperature, but that temperature will
> increase when there are more greenhouse gasses present.

The temperatur on the surface is not controlled by the composition of
the atmosphere, but mainly by sunshine and clouds in the sky.

Clouds are in reallity the main entity, which influences the climate,
while rare gases may have a little influence at best.

But clouds are entirely ignored by 'climate science'.

Instead of clouds and their formation, we have longish discussions about
a substance, which has no influence on cloud-creation at all.

I would therefore suggest, to drop the topic of CO2 entirely and
concentrate on the way more important topic'water'.

Water is THE main substance in relation to climate and weather and
inconceivable more important than CO2.

Water is also very abundant on Earth. The water cycle is actually just
enormous and has a volume of about 1 km³ per minute.

This enormous amount of water is actually, what makes the weather on
Earth, while CO2 has almost negliable influence.


...

TH

[Volney]

Radio waves don't emit photons because radio waves ARE photons.

Idjit.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/2/23 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> A photon is kind of wave packet [...]

No. Not even close. Just making stuff up like that is USELESS.

A photon is an excitation of the (quantum) electromagnetic field.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

[carl eto]

This is wrong. Diffraction minima are caused by an absence of photons,
not "destruction" of any.

So then we would not need an em field?

[carl eto]

A photon is an excitation of the (quantum) electromagnetic field.

but an expanding em field cannot form a particle structure of a photon. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[carl eto]

While those EM radiations are not VISIBLE light, they are still modeled
using photons, which are the gauge boson of the electromagnetic field.

and I thought light was visible!

[carl eto]

You are probably right that climate change is caused by clouds but what is causing the excessive amount of cloud formation. I would say nuclear power plants once-through cooling systems and the thermodynamics pollution dumped into the oceans from the cooling pools which is increasing the ocean temperature and causing the excessive amount of cloud formation.

[carl eto]

B = B. cos (kz - wt)i
E = E. cos (kz - wt)j

These electromagnetic wave equations are also physically invalid since the constant magnitude of the electric and magnetic maximum amplitudes imply that an electromagnetic field does not expand but radio wave expands which is experimental proof the said em wave equations are physically invalid.

[Thomas Heger]

I renamed that to 'structured spacetime', what is essentailly the same
idea, but has a wider range of applicability.

I had written kind of 'book' about this concept, which can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


The idea to connect GR and QM is relatively simple:
equate spacetime of GR and 'excited quantum field' of QM.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Well, if you equate radio waves and photons, this should work both ways
- like: photons are radio waves.

I would not really agree, because photons are 'packets' of something,
while radio waves are assumed to be continuous.

So: photons are not built from waves and waves are not built from photons.

Photons are certain states, which behave in the odd ways, which QM deals
with.

But on the macro level the waves behave like continuous structures.


TH

[carl eto]

Climate Change


The effect of nuclear power on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used in a reactor core that fission reaction causes the fuel rods to radiate heat which reactor core is cooled using a water source. Every six years the fuel rods are replaced with new uranium rods during the refueling. The used depleted uranium fuel rods are cooled and stored in onsite cooling pools. The world’s 440 nuclear power plants have an estimated average of three reactors at each site; consequently, there are a total of approximately 1,320 nuclear reactors worldwide where roughly 911 reactors use a once-through cooling system that discharges thermodynamics pollution (heated water) directly back into the water source.

Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of the earth’s atmosphere has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and, only .04% of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2; consequently, CO2 is not the primary cause of climate change. The heat capacity of ocean water is six times greater than the heat capacity of the earth's atmosphere. The average global ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 1.5° F in the last 100 years but since the ocean has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the earth’s atmosphere, the ocean temperature increase is comparable to a 9° F increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature which would account for the 12° F peaks in the polar temperatures. The 911 once-through cooled reactors and 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is directly discharged into the water source are the primary causes of climate change where the increase in the ocean temperature is shifting the earth’s surface temperature equilibrium which is resulting in the earth’s present weather anomalies. To solve a problem, you need to know the cause of the problem. Otherwise, you will never solve the problem. You cannot advance in science, if you cannot accept your mistakes.

[carl eto]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:36:27 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

"Photons are certain states, which behave in the odd ways, which QM deals
with."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QM is based on Planck's em photon but an expanding em field cannot form the particle structure of a photon.

[carl eto]

Climate Change


Global warming is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but the heat capacity of the earth’s atmosphere has not significantly increased in the last 100 years, and, only .04% of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2; consequently, infinitesimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (.04%) is not trapping a significant amount of heat that would justify the cause of climate change. The heat capacity of ocean water is six times greater than the heat capacity of the earth's atmosphere. The average global ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 1.5° F in the last 100 years but since the ocean has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the earth’s atmosphere, the ocean temperature increase is comparable to a (1.5° F) x 6 = 9° F increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature which would account for the 12° F peaks in the polar temperatures. The 911 once-through cooled reactors and 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is directly discharged into the water source are the primary causes of climate change where the increase in the ocean temperature is shifting the earth’s surface temperature equilibrium which is resulting in the earth’s present weather anomalies. To solve a problem, you need to know the cause of the problem, and, you cannot solve a problem, if you cannot accept your mistakes.

[carl eto]

The average global ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 1.5° F in the last 100 years since the ocean has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the earth’s atmosphere, the ocean temperature increase is comparable to a (1.5° F) x 6 = 9° F increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature which would account for the 12° F peaks in the polar temperatures.

[carl eto]

The average global ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 1.5° F in the last 100 years since the ocean has a heat capacity six times greater than that of the earth’s atmosphere, the ocean temperature increase is comparable to a (1.5° F) x 6 = 9° F increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature which would account for the 12° F peaks in the polar temperatures; consequently, the 911 once-through cooled reactors and 1.2 million tons of depleted uranium fuel rods that heated water (120o F) is directly discharged into the water source are the primary causes of climate change.

[carl eto]

There seem to be something wrong with the temperature increase of the ocean which is said to be 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years since the temperature is the same as the atmospheric increase. I have to think about it but definitely CO2 does not trap the earth heat since the outer edge of the atm. is open which begs the question where is the heat trapped? The earth's heat is dissipated at night. The assumption that heat bounces all around the atm is nonsense. Maybe consequently would have a better answer.

[carl eto]

In conclusion, by acting as if anthropogenic climate change is the issue, we have nothing to lose but stand to gain from the solutions proposed by such advocates.

https://www.quora.com/If-environmental- ... ent_type=2

———-that is nice.

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:14:55 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

> I have to think about it but definitely CO2 does not trap the earth heat since the outer edge of the atm. is open which begs the question where is the heat trapped?

Are you too ignorant to simply look this up for yourself? This is too easy...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20is%20Earth's%20most,including%20back%20toward%20Earth's%20surface.

"Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface."

The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the higher amount of heat that gets re-radiated back towards the surface of the planet.

Read that article all the way through, you should learn something that you clearly do not know right now!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 04.01.2023 um 03:13 schrieb Paul Alsing:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:14:55 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
>
>> I have to think about it but definitely CO2 does not trap the earth heat since the outer edge of the atm. is open which begs the question where is the heat trapped?
>
> Are you too ignorant to simply look this up for yourself? This is too easy...
>
> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20is%20Earth's%20most,including%20back%20toward%20Earth's%20surface.
>
> "Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface."

This is simply wrong, because the most important green-house-gas on
earth is water.

But 'climate-alarmists' simply do what you did and entirely ignore water.

Water can also be a gas and also emitt and absorb heat.

And water is fantastically abundant on planet Earth, which is mostly
covered with ozeans, that are on average 4 km deep.

So: the first thing to consider in connection with climate is water.

Water is present in a lot of different forms, what make this difficult:

We have ice and snow, for instance, and also liquid water (quite a lot).
But we have also a lot of water in the form of gas in the atmosphere.

This gas builds occasionally tiny droplets in the sky, known as 'clouds'.

These clouds are mainly, what controlls our weather, hence water is
ultimatively the main agent in climate.

This is all obvious. But not so obvious is, whether CO2 has an impact on
the weather at all.


TH

[Volney]

On 1/3/2023 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 02.01.2023 um 09:36 schrieb Volney:
>> On 1/1/2023 8:56 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:10:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>
>>> "Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays
>>> and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of
>>> photons."
>>>
>>>
>>> This statement does not make any sense since radio waves, microwaves,
>>> X-rays and gamma rays are not emitting light (the stuff that you can
>>> see in the dark).
>> Radio waves don't emit photons because radio waves ARE photons.
>
> Well, if you equate radio waves and photons, this should work both ways
> - like: photons are radio waves.
>
> I would not really agree, because photons are 'packets' of something,
> while radio waves are assumed to be continuous.
>
> So: photons are not built from waves and waves are not built from photons.

Waves and photons are two representations of the same thing.
Sometimes light acts like particles (photons), other times as waves.

> But on the macro level the waves behave like continuous structures.

Sometimes.

The photoelectric effect cannot be explained by waves, for example.

[Volney]

Water vapor has a negative feedback system, namely clouds.

When clouds form, not only does that reduce the water vapor and its
greenhouse contribution, they actively block incident light from
reaching the surface. That light never gets to contribute to the warming.

CO2 obviously does not participate in the water cycle. The question is
how much does CO2 contribute to the overall greenhouse effect when there
is also a water cycle.