Angular Momentum

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Angular Momentum

Page 1 of 5

Angular Momentum07-08-2017 20:14
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	This is a strange phenomena in our atmosphere. While the Boltzmann constant states KE = [1/2 mv^2] = 3/2 KT angular momentum has been omitted. This is because Boltzmann's formula references an ideal gas under ideal circumstances. When temperature T) drops not all gases cool. Angular momentum helps to explain some of what has been been missed in atmospheric chemistry. Why is this possible ? Because gravity is the opposite of entropy. This means that when 2 molecules collide releasing heat that their angular momentum decreases. This allows for gravity (an effect of it's binding energies) to prevent those molecules from breaking down into their base elements as in the Chapman cycle. When this happens the increased attraction of the internal gravitational effect of a molecule will increase the velocity of it's elements the same way an elliptical orbit increases the velocity of a planet. This increase in velocity allows for a molecule to absorb background radiation in greater quantities when a heavier molecule excites lighter molecules. The problem here is the north and south poles are not expanded by the Van Allen Radiation Belts and as a result a heavier molecule will create drag (a cooling effect) in that type of atmosphere. Between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles our atmosphere is excited by the Van Allen Radiation Belts which is why there are 3 different types of atmospheric climates. And at night it would be difficult to say because our atmosphere can effect any other part of it. This simply means that at night the atmosphere might be influenced by the atmosphere exposed to the Sun. If so then it could be warmer at night because momentum can be transferred within our atmosphere. And this is where my experiment is important. If it works it would allow me to suggest such a possibility exists. Jim p.s., not to get technical but can temperature change mass or does it just change the state of a molecule ? Why this matters is that when molecules are cooled like at night) it might only be that their state or level of excitement is changing. If so then angular momentum would conserve the mass of a molecule that is not excited to a higher temperature by heat. Edited on 07-08-2017 20:35
07-08-2017 20:41
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...."
07-08-2017 21:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: This is a strange phenomena in our atmosphere. While the Boltzmann constant states KE = [1/2 mv^2] = 3/2 KT angular momentum has been omitted. Because it's not a factor. James_ wrote: This is because Boltzmann's formula references an ideal gas under ideal circumstances. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation applies to all matter...everywhere...all the time. James_ wrote: When temperature T) drops not all gases cool. When temperature drops all gases cool. That's part of the definition of temperature. James_ wrote: Angular momentum helps to explain some of what has been been missed in atmospheric chemistry. Angular momentum is not a factor in the atmosphere (other than keeping 1000 mile per hour winds from scouring the Earth). James_ wrote: Why is this possible ? Because gravity is the opposite of entropy. Gravity is a force. It is not the opposite of entropy. You are trying to do the equivalence of comparing a apple with a rock. James_ wrote: This means that when 2 molecules collide releasing heat that their angular momentum decreases. Colliding molecules do not release heat. James_ wrote: This allows for gravity (an effect of it's binding energies) Gravity does not bind molecules. Electrostatic forces do. James_ wrote: to prevent those molecules from breaking down into their base elements Gravity does not prevent a molecular bond from breaking or making. James_ wrote: as in the Chapman cycle. The Chapman cycle does not concern base elements, other than occasional free oxygen atoms wandering around (which they always do). James_ wrote: When this happens the increased attraction of the internal gravitational effect of a molecule Gravity does not make or break molecular bonds. Electrostatic forces do. James_ wrote: will increase the velocity of it's elements the same way an elliptical orbit increases the velocity of a planet. Elliptical orbits do not increase the velocity of a planet. Overall speed is not changed by the shape of the orbit. An object in an elliptical orbit will speed up AND slow down during that orbit, maintaining the same average speed of an object in a similar circular orbit at the same average distance. That's a result of Kerpler's laws. James_ wrote: This increase in velocity allows for a molecule to absorb background radiation in greater quantities when a heavier molecule excites lighter molecules. Absorption or emission is not dependent on the atomic weight of a molecule. James_ wrote: The problem here is the north and south poles are not expanded by the Van Allen Radiation Belts and as a result a heavier molecule will create drag (a cooling effect) in that type of atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn't extend into the Van Allen belts. James_ wrote: Between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles our atmosphere is excited by the Van Allen Radiation Belts which is why there are 3 different types of atmospheric climates. The atmosphere doesn't extend into the Van Allen belts. James_ wrote: And at night it would be difficult to say because our atmosphere can effect any other part of it. Our atmosphere doesn't affect the Van Allen belts. James_ wrote: This simply means that at night the atmosphere might be influenced by the atmosphere exposed to the Sun. Yes. It was heated by solar action during the day. The land absorbs sunlight, converting that into thermal energy, which in turn heats the atmosphere. Both the surface and atmosphere are mass. It takes time to heat them. At night it takes time to cool them. James_ wrote: If so then it could be warmer at night because momentum can be transferred within our atmosphere. True, but that transfer is mostly very limited. Air is not a great conductor of heat. That's why we have fans. Replacing air is a better way to get rid of thermal energy. James_ wrote: And this is where my experiment is important. If it works it would allow me to suggest such a possibility exists. You keep talking about how great your experiment is. Why don't you go and actually conduct it? James_ wrote: p.s., not to get technical but can temperature change mass No. James_ wrote: or does it just change the state of a molecule ? There is no such thing as a 'solid', 'liquid', or 'gaseous' molecule. Molecules, just like atoms, do have energy levels (sometimes called 'states'). These are the levels of energy a molecule will absorb or emit. They are specific and unique for each molecule (or atom). The energy level of a molecule may be changed by the addition of energy from any source. It may also lose energy through a variety of means. Before you get into quantum mechanics, though, you might want to understand basic physics first. James_ wrote: Why this matters is that when molecules are cooled like at night) it might only be that their state or level of excitement is changing. The energy level of molecules is changing all the time, day or night. Big hairy deal. James_ wrote: If so then angular momentum would conserve the mass of a molecule that is not excited to a higher temperature by heat. Angular momentum is not a factor here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-08-2017 21:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	still learning wrote: Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...." Heh. Agreed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-08-2017 17:16
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...." Heh. Agreed. Ahh, the parrot speaks :-D @litesong, When you posted the link that showed that the morning temperatures are trending upward, this could explain why. The link is to night time records as compared to day time. This is where co2's effect might be showing itself more. What needs to be found out is how co2 changes the emissivity at night. This goes back to finding out how much extra heat can be transpored by increasing the amount of co2 in atmospheric gases. http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/record-warm-nighttime-temperatures-a-closer-look p.s., parrot, your "responses" are like malware, everyone knows what you're going to post. it's the same response all of the time. Can you think of anything new ? Edited on 08-08-2017 17:41

08-08-2017 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...." Heh. Agreed. Ahh, the parrot speaks :-D @litesong, When you posted the link that showed that the morning temperatures are trending upward, this could explain why. The link is to night time records as compared to day time. This is where co2's effect might be showing itself more. What needs to be found out is how co2 changes the emissivity at night. The presence of CO2 does not change the emissivity of Earth. James_ wrote: This goes back to finding out how much extra heat can be transpored by increasing the amount of co2 in atmospheric gases. ...deleted Holy Link... Since the heat conductivity of CO2 is very similar to other gases in the atmosphere, and since we are talking about increases on the order of 0.0001% of the atmosphere, I would say it's safe to ignore since we are talking about a millionths of a percent at this point. James_ wrote: p.s., parrot, your "responses" are like malware, everyone knows what you're going to post. it's the same response all of the time. Can you think of anything new ? You keep making the same mistakes and violations in physics. It's not my fault if you're repetitive. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-08-2017 23:29
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...." Heh. Agreed. Ahh, the parrot speaks :-D @litesong, When you posted the link that showed that the morning temperatures are trending upward, this could explain why. The link is to night time records as compared to day time. This is where co2's effect might be showing itself more. What needs to be found out is how co2 changes the emissivity at night. The presence of CO2 does not change the emissivity of Earth. James_ wrote: This goes back to finding out how much extra heat can be transpored by increasing the amount of co2 in atmospheric gases. ...deleted Holy Link... Since the heat conductivity of CO2 is very similar to other gases in the atmosphere, and since we are talking about increases on the order of 0.0001% of the atmosphere, I would say it's safe to ignore since we are talking about a millionths of a percent at this point. James_ wrote: p.s., parrot, your "responses" are like malware, everyone knows what you're going to post. it's the same response all of the time. Can you think of anything new ? You keep making the same mistakes and violations in physics. It's not my fault if you're repetitive. Into the Night, Could you please try harder ? You're too predictable with your answers. What you ignore with CO2 and I think you make it because you're not a student of the history of science. because of this you miss things, obvious things. An example is when the first hydrogen blew scientists had a pool on who could come closest to it's estimated force. No scientist was even remotely close. This is because they didn't consider it's cumulative effect. The same might be with CO2. It IMHO hasn't been properly studied. You know that any form of matter can transport heat. If it couldn't then nothing would register as having any kinetic energy. I think I will need to school you some more on history as time goes by. It really does help to understand what scientists were thinking when they falsified their own work. After all gravity can't have an angular potential to it otherwise planets orbiting the Sun would have velocity. And we know this latter part is a false statements because planets have no velocity. And this proves that gravity by itself is an attractive force. That's why I say who is this idiot that thinks that the Boltzmann constant could better express the kinetic energy of our atmosphere if angular momentum became a consideration ? I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!!
08-08-2017 23:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: Carroll did it better "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves...." Heh. Agreed. Ahh, the parrot speaks :-D @litesong, When you posted the link that showed that the morning temperatures are trending upward, this could explain why. The link is to night time records as compared to day time. This is where co2's effect might be showing itself more. What needs to be found out is how co2 changes the emissivity at night. The presence of CO2 does not change the emissivity of Earth. James_ wrote: This goes back to finding out how much extra heat can be transpored by increasing the amount of co2 in atmospheric gases. ...deleted Holy Link... Since the heat conductivity of CO2 is very similar to other gases in the atmosphere, and since we are talking about increases on the order of 0.0001% of the atmosphere, I would say it's safe to ignore since we are talking about a millionths of a percent at this point. James_ wrote: p.s., parrot, your "responses" are like malware, everyone knows what you're going to post. it's the same response all of the time. Can you think of anything new ? You keep making the same mistakes and violations in physics. It's not my fault if you're repetitive. Into the Night, Could you please try harder ? You're too predictable with your answers. This is good. It means the theories of science I am referring to are the same theories of science. James_ wrote: What you ignore with CO2 and I think you make it because you're not a student of the history of science. because of this you miss things, obvious things. The properties of CO2 are well known. It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with various tests and measurements. James_ wrote: An example is when the first hydrogen blew scientists had a pool on who could come closest to it's estimated force. No scientist was even remotely close. This is because they didn't consider it's cumulative effect. I assume you mean the hydrogen bomb. You are wrong. It's because they didn't have any idea of the power of the device. No one had ever set one off before. James_ wrote: The same might be with CO2. Whether you are working with pure CO2 or partial pressure CO2, the properties remain the same. They do not 'accumulate'. James_ wrote: It IMHO hasn't been properly studied. Now it is YOU that is ignoring the history of science (which I enjoy studying, by the way). James_ wrote: You know that any form of matter can transport heat. If it couldn't then nothing would register as having any kinetic energy. Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I think I will need to school you some more on history as time goes by. Good luck...I already know quite a bit of it. James_ wrote: It really does help to understand what scientists were thinking when they falsified their own work. They didn't falsify their own work. The device worked. James_ wrote: After all gravity can't have an angular potential to it There is no such thing as 'angular potential'. James_ wrote: otherwise planets orbiting the Sun would have velocity. Planets do have a velocity. James_ wrote: And we know this latter part is a false statements because planets have no velocity. Planets do have a velocity. See Kepler's laws. James_ wrote: And this proves that gravity by itself is an attractive force. Don't need to prove that. It is a predicate, not a conclusion. James_ wrote: That's why I say who is this idiot that thinks that the Boltzmann constant could better express the kinetic energy of our atmosphere The Boltzmann constant does not describe the kinetic energy of our atmosphere. It describes the units of measurement we use in various equations, including the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. James_ wrote: if angular momentum became a consideration ? It is not. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-08-2017 09:14
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	[b]James_ wrote litesong, When you posted the link that showed that the morning temperatures are trending upward, this could explain why. The link is to night time records as compared to day time. This is where co2's effect might be showing itself more. What needs to be found out is how co2 changes the emissivity at night. Increasing man-made non-phase change GHG CO2's subtle ability towards infra-red energy absorption doesn't change during the night. But nighttime reduces the much greater warming effects from the sun & immediate re-radiation from the warming ground, water, ice, snow & atmosphere that occur during the day. This CO2 seeming extra warming during very late night & very early morning temperatures appear more obvious, just because the sun isn't shining & its wildly over-whelming weather effects are greatly reduced. These CO2 effects are even more obvious in the late summer, fall, winter & very early spring in the High Arctic, when the sun is very very low on the North Pole horizon & below the horizon, during 6 months of darkness. Man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHG's increasing effects, plus their positive feedbacks are jumping High Arctic temperatures spectacularly, & becoming easily seen & accelerating during the seasons mentioned with the warming effects of direct sunlight extremely reduced or eliminated all-together. Edited on 09-08-2017 09:18
09-08-2017 18:37
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently.[/quote] Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! Edited on 09-08-2017 18:39
09-08-2017 19:22
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ![/quote] Heat is the average amount of kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. Thermal energy is the energy that is causing the motion of the molecules that generates the temperature. Arguing with a whacko isn't going to get you anywhere.
09-08-2017 21:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Into the Night wrote: Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Heat is not friction. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. When CO2 absorbs infrared light, the result is conversion of electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. The molecule becomes slightly warmer. It is simply another way for the surface to heat a molecule. It is no different from the surface heating a molecule of nitrogen via conduction. The effect is the same. The surface is cooler, the molecules it heated are warmer than they were. That molecule cannnot in turn heat the surface. It is colder than the surface. Heat never flows from cold to hot. It doesn't matter if heat is by conduction, convection, or radiation. ALL substances give off light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That includes the surface, as well as any gas in the atmosphere. The surface is not only hotter, it is denser. It gives off the most light to space. James_ wrote: Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! How do you threaten yourself??? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-08-2017 21:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! Heat is the average amount of kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. Thermal energy is the energy that is causing the motion of the molecules that generates the temperature. Arguing with a whacko isn't going to get you anywhere.[/quote] WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of an object and is expressed as a temperature. Whatever causes those molecules to become warmer may come from collision with more energetic molecules (heat by conduction), or by absorbing electromagnetic energy (heat by radiance). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-08-2017 17:19
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! Heat is the average amount of kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. Thermal energy is the energy that is causing the motion of the molecules that generates the temperature. Arguing with a whacko isn't going to get you anywhere. WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of an object and is expressed as a temperature. Whatever causes those molecules to become warmer may come from collision with more energetic molecules (heat by conduction), or by absorbing electromagnetic energy (heat by radiance).[/quote] Into the Night says >> WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. << I can go there. Because the Van Allen Radiation Belts attract atmospheric gases we have what the link shows. The elevation of the tropopause drops when the Van Allen Radiation Belts have less of an effect on it https://goo.gl/images/38kVgC. This allows for our temperate and tropical climates to attract thermal energy. Then if CO2 is cooling the polar regions this will increase the flow of thermal energy to the polar regions. And from there heat is then radiated out into space. This could theoretically allow CO2 to cause more thermal energy to be in the troposphere between the 2 polar regions which would allow for more heat to flow to the Arctic. And if you consider the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica https://goo.gl/images/Wcrr4O, it's now being defined by the influence or lack there of of the Van Allen Radiation belts. This link might show the difference better that the Van Allen Radiation belts have on our atmosphere. https://goo.gl/images/WXdDT9 Jim Edited on 10-08-2017 17:24
10-08-2017 17:22
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: How do you threaten yourself??? This is how; >> That's why I say who is this idiot that thinks that the Boltzmann constant could better express the kinetic energy of our atmosphere if angular momentum became a consideration ? I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! << I'm talking about myself.

10-08-2017 17:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! Heat is the average amount of kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. Thermal energy is the energy that is causing the motion of the molecules that generates the temperature. Arguing with a whacko isn't going to get you anywhere. WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of an object and is expressed as a temperature. Whatever causes those molecules to become warmer may come from collision with more energetic molecules (heat by conduction), or by absorbing electromagnetic energy (heat by radiance). Into the Night says >> WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. << I can go there. Because the Van Allen Radiation Belts attract atmospheric gases we have what the link shows. The elevation of the tropopause drops when the Van Allen Radiation Belts have less of an effect on it https://goo.gl/images/38kVgC. This allows for our temperate and tropical climates to attract thermal energy. Then if CO2 is cooling the polar regions this will increase the flow of thermal energy to the polar regions. And from there heat is then radiated out into space. This could theoretically allow CO2 to cause more thermal energy to be in the troposphere between the 2 polar regions which would allow for more heat to flow to the Arctic. And if you consider the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica https://goo.gl/images/Wcrr4O, it's now being defined by the influence or lack there of of the Van Allen Radiation belts. This link might show the difference better that the Van Allen Radiation belts have on our atmosphere. https://goo.gl/images/WXdDT9 Jim[/quote] Jim, while I applaud you gaining the courage to reply in a positive format and not be suppressed by what you might think of as attacks on you, you have to get some of your facts straight: 1. The Van Allen belts are magnetic in nature. They trap incoming energetic particles from the Sun and shield the majority of the Earth. But they drop below the surface of the Earth at the magnetic poles. However, the majority of belts is between 500 and 58,000 KILOMETERS from the Earth - there is no atmosphere out there. 2. The ozone layers serves one purpose and one purpose only - to absorb UV A rays from the sun. And ozone is extremely sparse. At its thickest it's only 10 ppm. Compare that to CO2 at 400 ppm. What's more the ozone layer is deep in the stratosphere where the air is very thin at best. So do not think that either of these peculiarities have anything whatsoever to do with the climate of this planet.
10-08-2017 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Heat is not kinetic energy. It is not thermal energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. James_ wrote: I have some tar and feathers with his name on it, we just need to find this dunce and quick !!!! Threatening people now? I thought you were trying to rake Wake over the coals for that recently. Into the Night, Heat might just be friction caused by molecules becoming excited. If so then this would allow for CO2 to cause warming. Threatening myself. I don't see how you missed I was referring to myself. панимаю лушье по Русский ? чтобы хоpошое (okay) ! Heat is the average amount of kinetic energy of the molecules of an object. Thermal energy is the energy that is causing the motion of the molecules that generates the temperature. Arguing with a whacko isn't going to get you anywhere. WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of an object and is expressed as a temperature. Whatever causes those molecules to become warmer may come from collision with more energetic molecules (heat by conduction), or by absorbing electromagnetic energy (heat by radiance). Into the Night says >> WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. << I can go there.[/quote] You will now treat us to a completely different topic. James_ wrote: Because the Van Allen Radiation Belts attract atmospheric gases They don't. James_ wrote: we have what the link shows. The elevation of the tropopause drops when the Van Allen Radiation Belts have less of an effect on it ...deleted image.... The altitude of the tropopause is higher at the equator for two reasons: 1) It's hotter at the equator, helps expand the atmosphere in general, and 2) Centrifugal force due to the Earth's spin (the major cause). James_ wrote: This allows for our temperate and tropical climates to attract thermal energy. Guess the Sun passing almost directly overhead regardless of season has nothing to do with it, eh? James_ wrote: Then if CO2 is cooling the polar regions CO2 is just another gas. It has no magick properties to warm or cool. It exists at the poles, at the equator, at the temperate regions. James_ wrote: this will increase the flow of thermal energy to the polar regions. CO2 does not increase heating of the polar regions. The difference in temperature is what does that. James_ wrote: And from there heat is then radiated out into space. The poles radiate less out into space. They are colder. The equator radiates more out into space. It is hotter. James_ wrote: This could theoretically allow CO2 to cause more thermal energy to be in the troposphere between the 2 polar regions which would allow for more heat to flow to the Arctic. This is the first time of heard of this one. CO2 acts as a 'lid' to prevent any radiance at all from Earth until energy reaches some magick position on the surface, and THEN is allowed to radiate??? James_ wrote: And if you consider the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica ...deleted image..., it's now being defined by the influence or lack there of of the Van Allen Radiation belts. The ozone hole is not defined or influenced by the Van Allen belts. The stratosphere doesn't extend anywhere near that high. James_ wrote: This link might show the difference better that the Van Allen Radiation belts have on our atmosphere. ...deleted image... No, It only shows how the tropopause is higher in altitude at the equator. It does not show why. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-08-2017 21:28
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Wake wrote: Jim, while I applaud you gaining the courage to reply in a positive format and not be suppressed by what you might think of as attacks on you, you have to get some of your facts straight: 1. The Van Allen belts are magnetic in nature. They trap incoming energetic particles from the Sun and shield the majority of the Earth. But they drop below the surface of the Earth at the magnetic poles. However, the majority of belts is between 500 and 58,000 KILOMETERS from the Earth - there is no atmosphere out there. 2. The ozone layers serves one purpose and one purpose only - to absorb UV A rays from the sun. And ozone is extremely sparse. At its thickest it's only 10 ppm. Compare that to CO2 at 400 ppm. What's more the ozone layer is deep in the stratosphere where the air is very thin at best. So do not think that either of these peculiarities have anything whatsoever to do with the climate of this planet. Wake, I do have my facts straight. And you have attacked me in the past. It's your way of compensating for what you don't know. After all you have told me that I am completely wrong about my understanding of conservation of momentum while you can't discuss it. there is much about science you don't understand. This is one reason why you say that ice core research is "iffy" at best. At the same time you say there is nothing in our climate that is changing while it is obvious that change is happening. Have you ever thought about opening a book and actually reading it ? Libraries have many books on physics, you should read one. By the way, I like you applauding me. Now I am supposed to agree with you when you disagree with about everything I post ? Gotta love attempts at brain washing. Jim
10-08-2017 21:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: Jim, while I applaud you gaining the courage to reply in a positive format and not be suppressed by what you might think of as attacks on you, you have to get some of your facts straight: 1. The Van Allen belts are magnetic in nature. They trap incoming energetic particles from the Sun and shield the majority of the Earth. But they drop below the surface of the Earth at the magnetic poles. However, the majority of belts is between 500 and 58,000 KILOMETERS from the Earth - there is no atmosphere out there. 2. The ozone layers serves one purpose and one purpose only - to absorb UV A rays from the sun. And ozone is extremely sparse. At its thickest it's only 10 ppm. Compare that to CO2 at 400 ppm. What's more the ozone layer is deep in the stratosphere where the air is very thin at best. So do not think that either of these peculiarities have anything whatsoever to do with the climate of this planet. Wake, I do have my facts straight. Don't think so. You don't even know what a 'fact' is. James_ wrote: And you have attacked me in the past. It's your way of compensating for what you don't know. Non-sequitur. Your arguments are attacked because they violate physics. James_ wrote: After all you have told me that I am completely wrong about my understanding of conservation of momentum while you can't discuss it. You ARE completely wrong about your understanding of momentum, including the conservation of it. James_ wrote: there is much about science you don't understand. Inversion fallacy. James_ wrote: This is one reason why you say that ice core research is "iffy" at best. Ice cores are useless as a proxy for CO2 concentration or past temperatures. James_ wrote: At the same time you say there is nothing in our climate that is changing while it is obvious that change is happening. Earth doesn't HAVE a climate. A climate is prevailing weather over 'a long time'. Earth has many climates. There is no such thing as a 'global' climate, just as there is no such thing as global weather. James_ wrote: Have you ever thought about opening a book and actually reading it ? Libraries have many books on physics, you should read one. Inversion fallacy, coupled with an ad hominem. James_ wrote: By the way, I like you applauding me. Now I am supposed to agree with you when you disagree with about everything I post ? Gotta love attempts at brain washing. Paranoia. No one is trying to wash your brain. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-08-2017 21:49
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: [quote]James_ wrote: Into the Night says >> WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. << I can go there. You will now treat us to a completely different topic. James_ wrote: Because the Van Allen Radiation Belts attract atmospheric gases They don't. James_ wrote: we have what the link shows. The elevation of the tropopause drops when the Van Allen Radiation Belts have less of an effect on it ...deleted image.... The altitude of the tropopause is higher at the equator for two reasons: 1) It's hotter at the equator, helps expand the atmosphere in general, and 2) Centrifugal force due to the Earth's spin (the major cause). James_ wrote: This allows for our temperate and tropical climates to attract thermal energy. Into the Night wrote: Guess the Sun passing almost directly overhead regardless of season has nothing to do with it, eh? Into the Night, You are RIGHT ! The Sun passing directly overhead is not what allows our planet to enjoy both a temperate and tropical climate. The Earth is 149.6 million km's from the Sun. The diameter is 12,742 km's. This means that the north and south poles are about 6,371 km's further from the Sun than the equator. The change in the amount of solar radiation that would reach the equator is too small of a number to care about. The link https://goo.gl/images/R1Z8xy shows that the Van Allen Radiation Belt has a greater surface area exposed to the Sun than our planet does. In this manner it acts as a lens focusing solar radiation between our 2 polar regions. And this helps to explain why our polar regions are much colder than the surface of our planet effected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. with centrifugal force the Earth's gravity negates that effect when it comes to our atmosphere. While centrifugal force does increase the diameter of our planet it is not a sufficient increase to account for the much warmer weather because of how far we are from the Sun. Jim
10-08-2017 22:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: 1. The Van Allen belts are magnetic in nature. Not quite. The magnetic field of the Earth is magnetic in nature, not the Van Allen belts. Wake wrote: They trap incoming energetic particles from the Sun and shield the majority of the Earth. The Van Allen belts ARE the energetic particles from the Sun that are trapped in the magnetic field of the Earth. Wake wrote: But they drop below the surface of the Earth at the magnetic poles. They do not enter the lower atmosphere of the Earth. Where they DO enter the atmosphere, auroras are produced. Essentially the Earth is like a giant dynamo, trapping charged particles in it's magnetic field. All that power follows that field down to the magnetic poles and light up the rarified gases at altitude just like a florescent light (but without the containment of glass or phosphors). The size of the auroral ring varies with solar activity. Wake wrote: However, the majority of belts is between 500 and 58,000 KILOMETERS from the Earth - there is no atmosphere out there. This part is correct. Wake wrote: 2. The ozone layers serves one purpose and one purpose only - to absorb UV A rays from the sun. Not quite. The ozone layer (there is only one) does not absorb UV-A light much at all. It absorbs UV-B light during formation of ozone, and UV-C light during it's destruction. Wake wrote: And ozone is extremely sparse. At its thickest it's only 10 ppm. Compare that to CO2 at 400 ppm. This part is correct. Wake wrote: What's more the ozone layer is deep in the stratosphere where the air is very thin at best. Not quite. The ozone layer basically IS the stratosphere. Ozone is destroyed at the top by UV-C light. This releases the energy in the molecule, heating the resulting oxygen. This warms the atmosphere around it. This takes place near the stop of the stratosphere. In this way UV-C light is blocked, allowing lower frequencies through. UV-B light creates ozone. This is an endothermic reaction, resulting in colder ozone than the oxygen it came from. This cools the atmosphere around it. This takes place near the bottom of the stratosphere. UV-A light still gets through. UV-A is somewhat diminished by oxygen in the air. It does not create or destroy ozone, but it can somewhat heat the oxygen anyway when absorbed. This energy is dissipated into the surrounding air. Not all oxygen is reacting with UV-A. the molecule has to be positioned correctly for absorption to occur (just like CO2). This creation/destruction process is why the stratosphere has a temperature inversion. Endothermic reaction at the bottom, exothermic reaction at the top. Wake wrote: So do not think that either of these peculiarities have anything whatsoever to do with the climate of this planet. This part is correct. There is no such thing as a 'global' climate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-08-2017 22:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]James_ wrote: Into the Night says >> WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. << I can go there. You will now treat us to a completely different topic. James_ wrote: Because the Van Allen Radiation Belts attract atmospheric gases They don't. James_ wrote: we have what the link shows. The elevation of the tropopause drops when the Van Allen Radiation Belts have less of an effect on it ...deleted image.... The altitude of the tropopause is higher at the equator for two reasons: 1) It's hotter at the equator, helps expand the atmosphere in general, and 2) Centrifugal force due to the Earth's spin (the major cause). James_ wrote: This allows for our temperate and tropical climates to attract thermal energy. Into the Night wrote: Guess the Sun passing almost directly overhead regardless of season has nothing to do with it, eh? Into the Night, You are RIGHT ! The Sun passing directly overhead is not what allows our planet to enjoy both a temperate and tropical climate. The Sun and only the Sun is what allows our planet to enjoy both a temperate and tropical climate. The Sun passing almost directly overhead at the equator is EXACTLY why the equator is hotter. James_ wrote: The Earth is 149.6 million km's from the Sun. The diameter is 12,742 km's. This means that the north and south poles are about 6,371 km's further from the Sun than the equator. The change in the amount of solar radiation that would reach the equator is too small of a number to care about. It's not about distance. It's about angle. James_ wrote: The link https://goo.gl/images/R1Z8xy shows that the Van Allen Radiation Belt has a greater surface area exposed to the Sun than our planet does. In this manner it acts as a lens focusing solar radiation between our 2 polar regions. The Van Allen belt is composed of charged particles from the Sun. Earth has a much greater surface area than these. The Belts do not act as a lens of any kind. James_ wrote: And this helps to explain why our polar regions are much colder than the surface of our planet effected by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The power in the particles of the Van Allen belt are sent into the upper atmosphere at the magnetic poles. That's what produces our auroras. James_ wrote: With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Falsified. The Van Allen belt is closest to Earth AT THE POLES. James_ wrote: with centrifugal force the Earth's gravity negates that effect when it comes to our atmosphere. Not completely. It's enough to prevent a 'bulge'. James_ wrote: While centrifugal force does increase the diameter of our planet Yet that somehow does not affect the atmosphere??? James_ wrote: it is not a sufficient increase to account for the much warmer weather because of how far we are from the Sun. As I've said before. It's not about distance. It's about angle. Did you know that our summer in the northern hemisphere coincides with Earth's apogee? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-08-2017 20:18
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: The Van Allen belt is composed of charged particles from the Sun. Earth has a much greater surface area than these. The Belts do not act as a lens of any kind. Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Falsified. The Van Allen belt is closest to Earth AT THE POLES. The link shows the Van Allen Radiation Belt is much larger that the Earth (https://goo.gl/images/7HNLyM.
11-08-2017 21:31
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: Jim, while I applaud you gaining the courage to reply in a positive format and not be suppressed by what you might think of as attacks on you, you have to get some of your facts straight: 1. The Van Allen belts are magnetic in nature. They trap incoming energetic particles from the Sun and shield the majority of the Earth. But they drop below the surface of the Earth at the magnetic poles. However, the majority of belts is between 500 and 58,000 KILOMETERS from the Earth - there is no atmosphere out there. 2. The ozone layers serves one purpose and one purpose only - to absorb UV A rays from the sun. And ozone is extremely sparse. At its thickest it's only 10 ppm. Compare that to CO2 at 400 ppm. What's more the ozone layer is deep in the stratosphere where the air is very thin at best. So do not think that either of these peculiarities have anything whatsoever to do with the climate of this planet. Wake, I do have my facts straight. And you have attacked me in the past. It's your way of compensating for what you don't know. After all you have told me that I am completely wrong about my understanding of conservation of momentum while you can't discuss it. there is much about science you don't understand. This is one reason why you say that ice core research is "iffy" at best. At the same time you say there is nothing in our climate that is changing while it is obvious that change is happening. Have you ever thought about opening a book and actually reading it ? Libraries have many books on physics, you should read one. By the way, I like you applauding me. Now I am supposed to agree with you when you disagree with about everything I post ? Gotta love attempts at brain washing. Jim Jim, you really do have to quit waving terms around that you seem to have recently learned and think you can use to explain the universe. There are a whole lot more about Newton's laws of motion that you seem to bypass. From this silly position you are telling me that I don't know physics. I designed and programmed VME boards that were installed on the International Space Station. They are no doubt still there and still in use. Exactly WHAT can you say about your experiences aside from I don't know anything about physics? Lockheed Aerospace still uses some of my boards. Though I could miniaturize them these days without problems. In case you are unaware of it NASA built the ISS. I consulted for NASA and you did - what again? This is not an attack since you might accomplish great things one day. But you're not going to do it closing your eyes, sticking your fingers tightly in your ears and humming loudly while you are saying "Conservation of Momentum". The paper you referred to in the other thread from the Nils Bohr Institute showed an extremely intelligent man and you didn't see any extreme statements from him did you?
11-08-2017 22:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Van Allen belt is composed of charged particles from the Sun. Earth has a much greater surface area than these. The Belts do not act as a lens of any kind. Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Falsified. The Van Allen belt is closest to Earth AT THE POLES. The link shows the Van Allen Radiation Belt is much larger that the Earth ...deleted redundant link... Fine. Your point...? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-08-2017 18:12
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Van Allen belt is composed of charged particles from the Sun. Earth has a much greater surface area than these. The Belts do not act as a lens of any kind. Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Falsified. The Van Allen belt is closest to Earth AT THE POLES. The link shows the Van Allen Radiation Belt is much larger that the Earth ...deleted redundant link... Fine. Your point...? Our atmosphere probably works differently than is considered at this time. And the Boltzmann constant might be able to help explain this. This is the value of his constant; 1.38064852 × 10^-23 m^2 kg s^-2 K^-1 And since kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 there is something that can be considered as well. One thought is 1/2m(l,m). This is factored as (0.5 x m) x (linear momentum x angular momentum). What this means is that it is accepted that linear momentum is equal in velocity to angular momentum. It might not be. If so then the effect that angular momentum can have on gases has been over looked. This is one thing that my experiment would suggest if it is successful. Kind of why I have been doing what I can to have it tried. Jim Edited on 12-08-2017 18:13
12-08-2017 20:45
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature.
12-08-2017 21:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Van Allen belt is composed of charged particles from the Sun. Earth has a much greater surface area than these. The Belts do not act as a lens of any kind. Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: With the tropopause it does take a significant drop in altitude when not exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Falsified. The Van Allen belt is closest to Earth AT THE POLES. The link shows the Van Allen Radiation Belt is much larger that the Earth ...deleted redundant link... Fine. Your point...? Our atmosphere probably works differently than is considered at this time. And the Boltzmann constant might be able to help explain this. This is the value of his constant; 1.38064852 × 10^-23 m^2 kg s^-2 K^-1 The Boltzmann constant does not explain anything. It is a constant of nature. It is used to convert the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (and a few others) to our units of measurement, just like the ideal gas constant. James_ wrote: And since kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 there is something that can be considered as well. One thought is 1/2m(l,m). This is factored as (0.5 x m) x (linear momentum x angular momentum). What this means is that it is accepted that linear momentum is equal in velocity to angular momentum. No it doesn't. Linear momentum and angular momentum are completely separate things. James_ wrote: It might not be. If so then the effect that angular momentum can have on gases has been over looked. It is not a factor. It has not been overlooked. James_ wrote: This is one thing that my experiment would suggest if it is successful. Kind of why I have been doing what I can to have it tried. Why are do you keep trying to get someone else to do your experiment? Why not just conduct the experiment yourself? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-08-2017 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. Quite true. Wind, for example, is kinetic energy of air, but is not a temperature. It is windspeed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-08-2017 21:36
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim

12-08-2017 21:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. Sure they would. The equation doesn't describe all the kinetic energy. It only describes how much of it is due to temperature. James_ wrote: If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Where? In the same thread as someone that quite adequately demonstrated the problem with your model? Nice job, Tim. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2017 12:01
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue.
13-08-2017 20:19
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY
13-08-2017 21:41
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY I once dropped out of a mechanical engineering degree. I have posted here a thread about the use of angular monetum and day length to show that the poles are clearly gainig ice mass. Surface detail and I disagree as to which side of the argument we support but both of us have a decent understanding of the basics of physics. You don't have a clue.
13-08-2017 22:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY You should watch ALL of that video, Jim. It will tell you all about the internal momentum of a gas. It doesn't tell you if the cube (the tank of gas) is moving itself or not. Further, the atmosphere is not a closed tank. It doesn't behave the same as a closed tank. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2017 22:54
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY I once dropped out of a mechanical engineering degree. I have posted here a thread about the use of angular monetum and day length to show that the poles are clearly gainig ice mass. Surface detail and I disagree as to which side of the argument we support but both of us have a decent understanding of the basics of physics. You don't have a clue. As you say >> Surface detail and I disagree as to which side of the argument we support but both of us have a decent understanding of the basics of physics << What I'm discussing goes beyond the "basics". It's most likely PhD level. and if my experiment works out then I'll be demonstrating something that is not currently known.
13-08-2017 23:00
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY You should watch ALL of that video, Jim. It will tell you all about the internal momentum of a gas. It doesn't tell you if the cube (the tank of gas) is moving itself or not. Further, the atmosphere is not a closed tank. It doesn't behave the same as a closed tank. Into the Night, You're funny. If a gas hits the side of the cube and it warms that is because kinetic energy is being transferred from the gas to the cube. This means that collisions are heat. I guess you missed that. Kind of why you being a parrot is an oxymoron. That's because you claim to be a parrot killer. I do have my other project to start on tomorrow. That should give me the opportunity to pursue my experiment. Then if it works it will be difficult for scientists to discredit it. Kind of like what goes on in here. For me this is just a tune up :-) Jim
13-08-2017 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY You should watch ALL of that video, Jim. It will tell you all about the internal momentum of a gas. It doesn't tell you if the cube (the tank of gas) is moving itself or not. Further, the atmosphere is not a closed tank. It doesn't behave the same as a closed tank. Into the Night, You're funny. If a gas hits the side of the cube and it warms that is because kinetic energy is being transferred from the gas to the cube. This means that collisions are heat. I guess you missed that. Nope. A collision is not heat in and of itself. It may cause heat though. A collision is not even thermal energy. A collision has no temperature. James_ wrote: Kind of why you being a parrot is an oxymoron. That's because you claim to be a parrot killer. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes. You seem to have a problem with that. James_ wrote: I do have my other project to start on tomorrow. That should give me the opportunity to pursue my experiment. Then if it works it will be difficult for scientists to discredit it. Kind of like what goes on in here. For me this is just a tune up :-) Jim An experiment is not a proof. It can be used to falsify a theory though. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2017 23:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY I once dropped out of a mechanical engineering degree. I have posted here a thread about the use of angular monetum and day length to show that the poles are clearly gainig ice mass. Surface detail and I disagree as to which side of the argument we support but both of us have a decent understanding of the basics of physics. You don't have a clue. As you say >> Surface detail and I disagree as to which side of the argument we support but both of us have a decent understanding of the basics of physics << What I'm discussing goes beyond the "basics". It's most likely PhD level. and if my experiment works out then I'll be demonstrating something that is not currently known. To do that, you will have to show how various existing theories in physics have been falsified. Be prepared for that. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2017 01:28
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James, You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature. If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say 3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE. If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot. Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place. Jim An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature. The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum. You have no clue. You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY Jim, Tim is correct and I can hardly believe you're coming up with this off-the-wall crap about how someone else doesn't understand physics.

Page 1 of 5

Join the debate Angular Momentum:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Conservation of Angular Momentum	1	29-10-2023 18:05