Angular Momentum

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.

Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.

I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.

James_ wrote:
Wake claims no climate change is happening

James_ wrote:
while you want to say I am a Good Parrot.

James_ wrote:
As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.

Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.

I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.

If you know this, why are you arguing otherwise?

James_ wrote:
Wake claims no climate change is happening

So do I. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. I say you can't even define what 'climate change' is.

James_ wrote:
while you want to say I am a Good Parrot.

You certainly have shown your faith in the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now.

That's right. The only way to discard a theory of science is to falsifiy it. A new theory MUST be externally consistent. It must not conflict with any existing theory of science. If it does, one of the conflicting theories must be destroyed. That means one of the two theories must be falsified.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

They are related according to the equation:

KE = (1/2)P^2 / m

Where: P is the momentum of a particle, and m is the mass.

Angular momentum is only one kind of momentum. Total momentum P is:

P = mL + mA where: mL is linear momentum and mA is angular momentum. They are not the same thing. One is translational movement, the other is spin.

A vibrating particle does have linear momentum, but not any angular momentum (that's counted for in the next part anyway).

When considering only the kinetic energy of a translational movement of a molecule (in other words the kind you get from linear movement only), then the equation:

KE = 2/3 k T relates temperature to kinetic energy, and with it, the linear momentum of the particle.

What a thermometer sees can best be described as the average kinetic energy in mL particles smacking into the bulb of the thermometer. Angular momentum does not affect a thermometer.

It's my opinion that when gases cool at night that mL can be conserved to some extent as mA.

James_ wrote:
And that because heat is the result of collisions https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138117/heat-generated-by-collision that the total kinetic energy mL + mA = m(L + A) actually matters.
Heat is by three methods:
1) Heating by conduction (transfer by collisions of molecules in hotter material against colder material).
2) Heating by convection (transfer by moving material itself).
3) Heating by radiation (transfer through conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again).

Angular momentum is not involved in any form of heating, since angular momentum is not used to describe temperature. Angular momentum does not translate to linear momentum or back again.

[quote]James_ wrote:
This would explain why during the day when the atmosphere has more background radiation that there are more collisions.

James_ wrote:
This is because more background radiation is available to be absorbed.

James_ wrote:
This would allow stored energy to be released which would mean that atmospheric gases have become excited.

James_ wrote:
@ITN,
See, I am thinking for myself yet you might say I am not because I am taking the time to consider something.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Actually, we know quite a lot.

We know that you heat matter, its temperature increases.

We know that you can't heat anything without a source of energy.

We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source.

We know that the hotter a bit of matter is, the more translational kinetic energy it has.

ITN,
When heat passes through the tropopause, the opposite of your statement is happening;
>> We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source. <<

James_ wrote:
This is why I believe that heat can be stored or conserved as angular momentum.

James_ wrote:
Yet you will say I am wrong while you say the very cold tropopause is warming our atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
Our atmosphere is proof that cold can warm a warmer area.

James_ wrote:
And as anyone familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics knows, energy can change form.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.

Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.

I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.

If you know this, why are you arguing otherwise?

James_ wrote:
Wake claims no climate change is happening

So do I. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. I say you can't even define what 'climate change' is.

James_ wrote:
while you want to say I am a Good Parrot.

You certainly have shown your faith in the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now.

That's right. The only way to discard a theory of science is to falsifiy it. A new theory MUST be externally consistent. It must not conflict with any existing theory of science. If it does, one of the conflicting theories must be destroyed. That means one of the two theories must be falsified.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

There was a warm period circa 1500 BC. All of the early early Mediterranean civilizations reached their peaks about this time. This was warmer than today.

Wake wrote:
By 1300 or so the temperature was returning to normal.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced heat came reduced evaporation of the sea.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced evaporation came great drought.

Wake wrote:
With the drought came famine.

Wake wrote:
Large parts of these civilizations tried to flee south to warmer climes.

Wake wrote:
This was Egypt.

Wake wrote:
Egypt fought them off and of the six civilizations only Egypt survived

Wake wrote:
because without a source of artificial energy they had no way to live normal lives.

Wake wrote:
This is the future Greenman preys for - death to anyone that thinks that nature is far more powerful than man.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Actually, we know quite a lot.

We know that you heat matter, its temperature increases.

We know that you can't heat anything without a source of energy.

We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source.

We know that the hotter a bit of matter is, the more translational kinetic energy it has.

ITN,
When heat passes through the tropopause, the opposite of your statement is happening;
>> We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source. <<

The tropopause does warm the stratosphere, but not the troposphere.

It does it in a rather different way, and it involves the Sun and oxygen. At night, the mass of the air involved tends to keep the temperature profile reasonably stable enough until daylight again.

The Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. Among these are ultraviolet light. This band is split into three sub-bands, called UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C, with UV-C being the highest frequency and most energetic light. Exposure to UV-C causes immediate tissue damage to us.

When ultraviolet light strikes oxygen, chemical changes happen. This is caused by absorption of that light into the molecule, similar to infrared absorption by CO2. The difference is the energy of the light. It causes chemical reactions instead of heating.

If oxygen absorbs UV-B, it will become ozone (O3 instead of O2). This is a higher energy molecule, and the reaction is endothermic. It cools the air. This takes place in the bottom of the stratosphere, right down to the tropopause. This process also absorbs the UV-B light, reducing it's intensity on the surface. This light causes sunburn. UV-A does not burn, but causes tanning. Both effects are again chemical reactions.

Ozone, like any gas, wanders through the atmosphere.

At higher altitudes, ozone is exposed to UV-C light. This light is so energetic is destroys the unstable ozone and it becomes oxygen again (O3 to O2). This is an exothermic reaction. It warms the air. The UV-C is absorbed into the ozone to cause this.

The stratosphere completely absorbs ALL of the incoming UV-C light by destroying ozone. This is good. It causes immediate severe tissue damage to us.

UV-A does not cause ozone construction or destruction. It reacts with other molecules, but reaches the surface relatively unscathed.

At night, ozone production (and destruction) stops. Ozone will self destruct, however, since it is an unstable molecule. The ozone layer thins at night by quite a bit. It is rebuilt every day.

In places like the poles, ozone production can stop for quite awhile as that pole enters its winter (and the loss of sunlight for months). The result is a 'hole' in the ozone layer. This hole will vary somewhat in size and shape depending on the upper air winds. When sunlight again returns to the pole in Spring, the 'hole' disappears as ozone is built up again.

The practical upshot of all of this is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The air is still thinning, however, so energy density (a way to profile energy vertically in the atmosphere, not temperature) still reduces, despite the temperature inversion.

James_ wrote:
This is why I believe that heat can be stored or conserved as angular momentum.

Angular momentum is not used for temperature or heat. It doesn't collide with anything.

James_ wrote:
Yet you will say I am wrong while you say the very cold tropopause is warming our atmosphere.

The cold tropopause is the coldest part of our atmosphere. It is not the least energetic part of our atmosphere though. See my description of ozone (and associated Chapman cycle).

James_ wrote:
Our atmosphere is proof that cold can warm a warmer area.

The tropopause does not warm the troposphere. It can only warm the stratosphere through the assistance of the Sun and related chemical reactions with oxygen and ozone. Total energy density still reduces with altitude, even through the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
And as anyone familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics knows, energy can change form.

That is not the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.

Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.

I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.

If you know this, why are you arguing otherwise?

James_ wrote:
Wake claims no climate change is happening

So do I. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. I say you can't even define what 'climate change' is.

James_ wrote:
while you want to say I am a Good Parrot.

You certainly have shown your faith in the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now.

That's right. The only way to discard a theory of science is to falsifiy it. A new theory MUST be externally consistent. It must not conflict with any existing theory of science. If it does, one of the conflicting theories must be destroyed. That means one of the two theories must be falsified.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

There was a warm period circa 1500 BC. All of the early early Mediterranean civilizations reached their peaks about this time. This was warmer than today.

Perhaps for the Mideast and Northern Africa it was. We don't know about anywhere else.

Wake wrote:
By 1300 or so the temperature was returning to normal.

Define 'normal'.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced heat came reduced evaporation of the sea.

Why is it more humid in Seattle than in the middle of the Sahara? Seattle is bordering colder water.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced evaporation came great drought.

This is not the cause of drought. I suggest you study the jet streams again.

Wake wrote:
With the drought came famine.

That does tend to happen.

Wake wrote:
Large parts of these civilizations tried to flee south to warmer climes.

?? Guess fleeing east wasn't good enough, eh?

Wake wrote:
This was Egypt.

May I suggest you study geography as well?

Wake wrote:
Egypt fought them off and of the six civilizations only Egypt survived

Uh...what about the Jews? What about the Nigerians? *sigh* nobody remembers the Jews.

Wake wrote:
because without a source of artificial energy they had no way to live normal lives.

Guess fire hadn't been discovered yet, eh?

Wake wrote:
This is the future Greenman preys for - death to anyone that thinks that nature is far more powerful than man.

You haven't been listening to his arguments, have you?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.

Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.

I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.

If you know this, why are you arguing otherwise?

James_ wrote:
Wake claims no climate change is happening

So do I. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. I say you can't even define what 'climate change' is.

James_ wrote:
while you want to say I am a Good Parrot.

You certainly have shown your faith in the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:
As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now.

That's right. The only way to discard a theory of science is to falsifiy it. A new theory MUST be externally consistent. It must not conflict with any existing theory of science. If it does, one of the conflicting theories must be destroyed. That means one of the two theories must be falsified.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

There was a warm period circa 1500 BC. All of the early early Mediterranean civilizations reached their peaks about this time. This was warmer than today.

Perhaps for the Mideast and Northern Africa it was. We don't know about anywhere else.

Wake wrote:
By 1300 or so the temperature was returning to normal.

Define 'normal'.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced heat came reduced evaporation of the sea.

Why is it more humid in Seattle than in the middle of the Sahara? Seattle is bordering colder water.

Wake wrote:
With the reduced evaporation came great drought.

This is not the cause of drought. I suggest you study the jet streams again.

Wake wrote:
With the drought came famine.

That does tend to happen.

Wake wrote:
Large parts of these civilizations tried to flee south to warmer climes.

?? Guess fleeing east wasn't good enough, eh?

Wake wrote:
This was Egypt.

May I suggest you study geography as well?

Wake wrote:
Egypt fought them off and of the six civilizations only Egypt survived

Uh...what about the Jews? What about the Nigerians? *sigh* nobody remembers the Jews.

Wake wrote:
because without a source of artificial energy they had no way to live normal lives.

Guess fire hadn't been discovered yet, eh?

Wake wrote:
This is the future Greenman preys for - death to anyone that thinks that nature is far more powerful than man.

You haven't been listening to his arguments, have you?

We have this information from all over the world. This comes from pollen counts from dry lakes.

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

And you don't accept references - remember.

James_ wrote:

James_ wrote:
You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not limited at all. It is an open system that can change and go anywhere. What is limited is the method by which that is done. You can't just change science because you don't like it.

Parrot,
I mean you keep limiting science. Your spirituality and circular arguments prevents any real discussion.

James_ wrote:
@All,
I think it was still learning who said they watched the eclipse in Oregon. They also mentioned that during totality that it stayed warm.

James_ wrote:
It may be possible to show evidence that the van Allen radiation belts help to warm our atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
This would show why conservation of angular momentum matters.

James_ wrote:
Since I live in the U.S. I'll need to research temperatures north and south of the eclipse as well as the days before and after.

James_ wrote:
Then it could be noted how much the temperature changed as a result of the eclipse.

James_ wrote:
This is because if only the Sun warms our planet then how much should our atmosphere cool during totality of an eclipse ?

James_ wrote:
And if our atmosphere is influenced by an outside force then this could show why it is necessary to determine the specific amount of warming that CO2 allows for.

James_ wrote:
To consider common sense if there were empirical evidence then it would do a lot to settle the debate on CO2's role in our atmosphere and with climate change as well.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

And you don't accept references - remember.

But I do. I just have a higher standard than most.

Since you do not want to seem to specify the information, I will assume you have lost context and end this subthread here.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

And you don't accept references - remember.

But I do. I just have a higher standard than most.

Since you do not want to seem to specify the information, I will assume you have lost context and end this subthread here.

In fact you have no standard. You could have looked it up with your claimed higher standard but you didn't.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=usgsstaffpub

This shows the entire Mycenaean period missing completely. This is because there was no rainfall, no plant growth and even blowing dust was absent.

So don't hand us your miserable crap. Go back to your "Book of Big Words" and use a couple of them pretending that they have some sort of meaning to you.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

And you don't accept references - remember.

But I do. I just have a higher standard than most.

Since you do not want to seem to specify the information, I will assume you have lost context and end this subthread here.

In fact you have no standard. You could have looked it up with your claimed higher standard but you didn't.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=usgsstaffpub

This shows the entire Mycenaean period missing completely. This is because there was no rainfall, no plant growth and even blowing dust was absent.

So don't hand us your miserable crap. Go back to your "Book of Big Words" and use a couple of them pretending that they have some sort of meaning to you.

What is your argument? You keep presenting papers and statements about drought, but you are presenting no argument.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: What information?? You have become more and more vague.

And you don't accept references - remember.

But I do. I just have a higher standard than most.

Since you do not want to seem to specify the information, I will assume you have lost context and end this subthread here.

In fact you have no standard. You could have looked it up with your claimed higher standard but you didn't.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=usgsstaffpub

This shows the entire Mycenaean period missing completely. This is because there was no rainfall, no plant growth and even blowing dust was absent.

So don't hand us your miserable crap. Go back to your "Book of Big Words" and use a couple of them pretending that they have some sort of meaning to you.

What is your argument? You keep presenting papers and statements about drought, but you are presenting no argument.

You get more comical with each posting. It's no surprise you can't remember your own postings - your own beliefs. And when when countered you have these attacks of amnesia.

James_ wrote:
@All,
This thread WAS about angular momentum. If anyone cares to look at the last 20 or so posts it was nothing but the 2 idiots who are now hiding behind a kid. I think one thing it shows that neither one takes the time to consider anything, just a desire to 1 UP the other person.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
This thread WAS about angular momentum. If anyone cares to look at the last 20 or so posts it was nothing but the 2 idiots who are now hiding behind a kid. I think one thing it shows that neither one takes the time to consider anything, just a desire to 1 UP the other person.

Actually it was about your total misunderstanding of the difference between atomic angular momentum and the angular momentum and it's causes on an astronomic scale.

And your cranky response to being corrected on your misunderstanding was visible even to a 5 year old.

James_ wrote:
@All,
This thread WAS about angular momentum. If anyone cares to look at the last 20 or so posts it was nothing but the 2 idiots who are now hiding behind a kid. I think one thing it shows that neither one takes the time to consider anything, just a desire to 1 UP the other person.