Remember me
▼ Content

Ignorance Is No Excuse


Ignorance Is No Excuse07-01-2018 19:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
I was discussing the data from Dr. Roy Spencer's satellite projects elsewhere and the other person asked some pertinent questions:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

He, like some of the people posting here, made the mistake of thinking that there were large temperature changed on this chart.

But there aren't and here's why;

If you look at each of those round points on the chart they aren't years. They are about 1/10th of a year. This means that the area between 1998 and 1999 only had about 9 warmer than usual measurements whereas the so-called "spike" between 2016 and 2017 only had six measurements higher than the norm or average deviation.

What this means is that the only thing that can be responsible for the two spikes in temperature for the entire 39 or so years that chart covers is normal chaotic weather patterns.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you click on "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change" directly under the seasonal chart and compare the second graph on this page to the satellite data the differences are astonishing.

While it appears that up until 1980 the temperature records were fairly honestly kept and reported, the BS from NASA since 1979 is such that this should be grounds for both Congressional investigations in DEPTH and criminal actions against those that have been manufacturing these temperature curves for political reasons.
Edited on 07-01-2018 20:45
07-01-2018 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.
08-01-2018 16:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.
08-01-2018 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-01-2018 19:37
08-01-2018 20:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.
08-01-2018 20:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.


When you brought up the 'the greatest scientists' argument. Since you are repeating the fallacy and coupling it with your usual insult fallacy, you are just repeating your own mistake again.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.


When you brought up the 'the greatest scientists' argument. Since you are repeating the fallacy and coupling it with your usual insult fallacy, you are just repeating your own mistake again.


Ahh, the hollowman strikes again. Now it is a fallacy that what all physicists agree upon in order to measure temperatures from afar is all nothing more than a fairy tale and you know better. Tell us again how aircraft barometric altimeters are more accurate than bicycle altimeters. That was an especially good one. Why you must be a real hit as an operating engineer. Turn on any good heaters lately? Or they probably just leave them on all the time in Seattle so you don't have much work to show you don't know what you're doing.
08-01-2018 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.


When you brought up the 'the greatest scientists' argument. Since you are repeating the fallacy and coupling it with your usual insult fallacy, you are just repeating your own mistake again.


Ahh, the hollowman strikes again. Now it is a fallacy that what all physicists agree upon

Bigotry (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
in order to measure temperatures from afar is all nothing more than a fairy tale and you know better.

Satellites can't measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again how aircraft barometric altimeters are more accurate than bicycle altimeters.

May I suggest you look up the requirements of aircraft barometers? You can find them in the FAA regulations. You'll find your little crappy bicycle barometer doesn't qualify.
Wake wrote:
That was an especially good one.

Well, since you believe your little crappy bicycle barometer is good enough to fly with....'nuff said.
Wake wrote:
Why you must be a real hit as an operating engineer.

I am. Thank you.
Wake wrote:
Turn on any good heaters lately? ...deleted Mantra 2...1...2...and related Bulverism...

Don't need to. They turn themselves on when needed.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 23:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.


When you brought up the 'the greatest scientists' argument. Since you are repeating the fallacy and coupling it with your usual insult fallacy, you are just repeating your own mistake again.


Ahh, the hollowman strikes again. Now it is a fallacy that what all physicists agree upon

Bigotry (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
in order to measure temperatures from afar is all nothing more than a fairy tale and you know better.

Satellites can't measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again how aircraft barometric altimeters are more accurate than bicycle altimeters.

May I suggest you look up the requirements of aircraft barometers? You can find them in the FAA regulations. You'll find your little crappy bicycle barometer doesn't qualify.
Wake wrote:
That was an especially good one.

Well, since you believe your little crappy bicycle barometer is good enough to fly with....'nuff said.
Wake wrote:
Why you must be a real hit as an operating engineer.

I am. Thank you.
Wake wrote:
Turn on any good heaters lately? ...deleted Mantra 2...1...2...and related Bulverism...

Don't need to. They turn themselves on when needed.


Again, stupid, if ALL of the energy that strikes the surface leaves then the emissivity is one.

Make up your mind stupid. Either you have to say you're incorrect about not all energy leaving and look stupid or you have to say you're incorrect about needing emissivity and look stupid.

In either case you're stupid.
09-01-2018 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. It is not possible to determine that either.


hollowman strikes again telling us that the greatest scientists in the world don't know what they're talking about and he does.


Consensus is not used in science. Science isn't credentials either.

Considering that you also brought up the government funding of scientists, and how that changes what they say, you are making an irrational argument here. You are making a paradox by denying your own previous argument.


Excuse me - where did I say that consensus was science? You'll have to do better and inventing your arguments while you are criticizing the most knowledgeable men in the world with your 3rd grade education.


When you brought up the 'the greatest scientists' argument. Since you are repeating the fallacy and coupling it with your usual insult fallacy, you are just repeating your own mistake again.


Ahh, the hollowman strikes again. Now it is a fallacy that what all physicists agree upon

Bigotry (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
in order to measure temperatures from afar is all nothing more than a fairy tale and you know better.

Satellites can't measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again how aircraft barometric altimeters are more accurate than bicycle altimeters.

May I suggest you look up the requirements of aircraft barometers? You can find them in the FAA regulations. You'll find your little crappy bicycle barometer doesn't qualify.
Wake wrote:
That was an especially good one.

Well, since you believe your little crappy bicycle barometer is good enough to fly with....'nuff said.
Wake wrote:
Why you must be a real hit as an operating engineer.

I am. Thank you.
Wake wrote:
Turn on any good heaters lately? ...deleted Mantra 2...1...2...and related Bulverism...

Don't need to. They turn themselves on when needed.


Again, stupid, if ALL of the energy that strikes the surface leaves then the emissivity is one.

Nope.
Wake wrote:
Make up your mind stupid.

I didn't change it.
Wake wrote:
Either you have to say you're incorrect about not all energy leaving and look stupid or you have to say you're incorrect about needing emissivity and look stupid.

I don't have to make such a choice. You are trying to rewrite the Stefan Boltzmann law again.

All the energy that arrives also leaves, even in a perfect reflector, with an emissivity of zero, or an ideal black body, with an emissivity of one. It is true for all gray bodies also, just the same.

Emissivity is NOT a ratio of how much energy arrives and leaves. It is how well what arrives is absorbed and how well what leaves is emitted. Reflected light is still coming in and going out. Energy coming in is the same as energy going out (assuming a stable source of energy).


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 04:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Again, thanks for your spectacular proof. I like the reflector have an emissivity of zero part. That was really clever.
09-01-2018 23:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
The two of you sound like an old married couple
10-01-2018 00:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.
10-01-2018 18:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Any idiot can write a paper, dumbass. There are a lot of pretty stupid studies out there also. Many aren't even studies.

Government grants...what a waste.

Wake wrote:
Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

Then why do you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law? They have not yet been falsified.
Wake wrote:
How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

Never said this. Lying about what people said is not helping you.
Wake wrote:
He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

Never said this either. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does require a frame of reference, but not one based on a non-sequitur.
Wake wrote:
James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature?

For that particular measurement of ground temperature. The satellite was adjusted for it too. Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature independently because you do not know the emissivity of Earth.

Wake wrote:
Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Not possible. The same frequencies of light are involved.
Wake wrote:
Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

If you get the job, look around you. You'll find incompetent people everywhere. It's the same in any company of more than a dozen or so.
Wake wrote:
I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.

I see you really love your wife when you refer to her as the 'old bat'.


The Parrot Killer
10-01-2018 18:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.


You're alright Wake ! As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

What they miss is that the universe as an isolated system cannot suffer any entropy. In order for entropy to exist there needs to be a place for "heat" to go to.
This is why they say that perpetual motion is impossible, matter cannot increase nor decrease it's own potential. It's value can only change when something is trying to reach an equilibrium with it's environment or a part of a system.
As for myself, I do know things and some of which aren't in the books yet. Changing the perception of how our atmosphere works won't be easy so will limit how much energy I expend in that direction.
10-01-2018 20:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.


You're alright Wake ! As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

What they miss is that the universe as an isolated system cannot suffer any entropy. In order for entropy to exist there needs to be a place for "heat" to go to.
This is why they say that perpetual motion is impossible, matter cannot increase nor decrease it's own potential. It's value can only change when something is trying to reach an equilibrium with it's environment or a part of a system.
As for myself, I do know things and some of which aren't in the books yet. Changing the perception of how our atmosphere works won't be easy so will limit how much energy I expend in that direction.


Well, the motions of the universe show that there never was a Big Bang. And so there is some way of recycling the universe with several theories being developed for an "eternal universe".

Remember that Einstein's General Theory also operates in the reverse - that is if you exhaust all of the energy in the universe by moving matter until it comes to a stop all matter disappears.

The time periods of these sorts of things are on such a scale that even top flight physicists can't deal successfully with them. What's more, the universe appears to be accelerating and not decelerating meaning that in some manner energy is being added and not subtracted.
10-01-2018 20:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.


You're alright Wake ! As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

What they miss is that the universe as an isolated system cannot suffer any entropy. In order for entropy to exist there needs to be a place for "heat" to go to.
This is why they say that perpetual motion is impossible, matter cannot increase nor decrease it's own potential. It's value can only change when something is trying to reach an equilibrium with it's environment or a part of a system.
As for myself, I do know things and some of which aren't in the books yet. Changing the perception of how our atmosphere works won't be easy so will limit how much energy I expend in that direction.


Well, the motions of the universe show that there never was a Big Bang. And so there is some way of recycling the universe with several theories being developed for an "eternal universe".

Remember that Einstein's General Theory also operates in the reverse - that is if you exhaust all of the energy in the universe by moving matter until it comes to a stop all matter disappears.

The time periods of these sorts of things are on such a scale that even top flight physicists can't deal successfully with them. What's more, the universe appears to be accelerating and not decelerating meaning that in some manner energy is being added and not subtracted.


What ? No references ?
Kind of vague with your answer don't ya think ? You forgot that gravity is the opposite of entropy. It's possible that the universe is in a constant state of flux. This was the accepted theory in the 1960's. I think with the "Big Bang" that it is accepted because it is linear.
10-01-2018 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.


You're alright Wake ! As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes
...deleted Holy Link...

An incomplete description, rather poorly written.
James_ wrote:
What they miss is that the universe as an isolated system cannot suffer any entropy. In order for entropy to exist there needs to be a place for "heat" to go to.

This has not been missed. The 2nd law does not apply to the universe as a whole because there is no boundary to the system. The law is meaningless.
James_ wrote:
This is why they say that perpetual motion is impossible,

This is not why. The Church of Global Warming does try to constantly build a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order, however. They sometimes try to build one of the 1st order as well.
James_ wrote:
matter cannot increase nor decrease it's own potential. It's value can only change when something is trying to reach an equilibrium with it's environment or a part of a system.

It is possible for entropy to simply stay the same. It is possible to consider only a system of unchanging matter or energy.
James_ wrote:
As for myself, I do know things and some of which aren't in the books yet.

There is, however, one big difference. You have to face the requirement of falsifying quite a few theories of science to reach your ideas.
James_ wrote:
Changing the perception of how our atmosphere works won't be easy so will limit how much energy I expend in that direction.

If you are going to expend energy in that direction, you have a TON of work to do. However, since you just TALK about how great your ideas are, I don't think that's going to happen, especially since that work is to falsify quite a few theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-01-2018 22:13
10-01-2018 22:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The two of you sound like an old married couple


With the problem that I have backed up my claims with references to papers and studies whereas he has called them "deleted holy links".

Either you accept science that has not been proven wrong or you do not understand what science is.

How can he say that I "don't know what the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics is" and then tell us all minutes later that "well, that's not a law, it's just a rule."

He tells us that correlated matter is the same as quantum entanglement. These are two totally different things and the first can show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires the same frame of reference in order to work in the way it states.

James, YOU are trying to learn things. hollowman is attempting to usurp science to in some manner aggrandize himself.

While he is telling you that you can't measure the MGT didn't I just show you a fairly modern paper that tested the satellite system and showed a very small difference from the orbital measurement and the actual on the ground temperature? Furthermore, the CUBESAT has a newer and better temperature measuring system that will avoid the possible sources for error due to what is essentially reflections off of waves.

Presently I am being considered for positions at Lockheed Martin and Sandia National Laboratories and it sure as hell isn't because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am part of an old married couple and I can tell you we do not argue about facts other than how much money the old bat is spending.


You're alright Wake ! As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

What they miss is that the universe as an isolated system cannot suffer any entropy. In order for entropy to exist there needs to be a place for "heat" to go to.
This is why they say that perpetual motion is impossible, matter cannot increase nor decrease it's own potential. It's value can only change when something is trying to reach an equilibrium with it's environment or a part of a system.
As for myself, I do know things and some of which aren't in the books yet. Changing the perception of how our atmosphere works won't be easy so will limit how much energy I expend in that direction.


Well, the motions of the universe show that there never was a Big Bang.

You don't know the motions of the universe. You can't see all of it.
Wake wrote:
And so there is some way of recycling the universe with several theories being developed for an "eternal universe".

One religion or the other...it is just the same. It is still religion.
Wake wrote:
Remember that Einstein's General Theory also operates in the reverse - that is if you exhaust all of the energy in the universe by moving matter until it comes to a stop all matter disappears.

Einstein doesn't have 'stopped' matter in his theory. The theory itself says there is no such thing as 'stopped' matter.
Wake wrote:
The time periods of these sorts of things are on such a scale that even top flight physicists can't deal successfully with them.

Not the time period. The religious aspects of what they are arguing. Failing to recognize a circular argument is a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
What's more, the universe appears to be accelerating and not decelerating meaning that in some manner energy is being added and not subtracted.

You don't know what the universe is doing. You can't see all of it.


The Parrot Killer
10-01-2018 22:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote: What ? No references ?
Kind of vague with your answer don't ya think ? You forgot that gravity is the opposite of entropy. It's possible that the universe is in a constant state of flux. This was the accepted theory in the 1960's. I think with the "Big Bang" that it is accepted because it is linear.


Kinda vague about untested hypothesis?

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-theory-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17171-big-bang-theory-science-never-happened

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/

How difficult would it be to look this stuff up. And how could possibly less vague about theoretical bs?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-2011-nobel-prize-in-prize-physics/

The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics on the other hand is not vague in the least.
11-01-2018 00:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: What ? No references ?
Kind of vague with your answer don't ya think ? You forgot that gravity is the opposite of entropy. It's possible that the universe is in a constant state of flux. This was the accepted theory in the 1960's. I think with the "Big Bang" that it is accepted because it is linear.


...deleted argument from randU...Mantra 10 (attempted redefinition of 'religion' as 'science')...Holy Link...Holy Link...Holy Link...Holy Link...Holy Link...Holy Link...4...false authority fallacy...


No argument presented, Wake. You're going to need to do better than that. This isn't that hard.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Ignorance Is No Excuse:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact