Remember me
▼ Content

The Gulf Stream



Page 1 of 3123>
The Gulf Stream18-04-2018 17:28
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
..This article (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/34cb0f88-bca1-3ddb-a0bf-90b12530930a/ss_dying-gulf-stream-may-trigger.html) which cites 2 studies seems to be missing something.
..
The culprit is apparently melting sea ice and glaciers, which inject fresh water into the North Atlantic and weaken the stream.

.. If deep faults and vents are releasing heat into the Arctic, this would be an expected consequence. This is also why I believe more research is needed on deep ocean currents and temperatures. This might help to show if deep faults and vents are injecting much heat into our oceans and seas.
18-04-2018 18:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
..This article (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/34cb0f88-bca1-3ddb-a0bf-90b12530930a/ss_dying-gulf-stream-may-trigger.html) which cites 2 studies seems to be missing something.
..
The culprit is apparently melting sea ice and glaciers, which inject fresh water into the North Atlantic and weaken the stream.

.. If deep faults and vents are releasing heat into the Arctic, this would be an expected consequence. This is also why I believe more research is needed on deep ocean currents and temperatures. This might help to show if deep faults and vents are injecting much heat into our oceans and seas.


If they were, we would see it on the surface. Warm water rises, just like warm air.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2018 01:47
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
..This article (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/34cb0f88-bca1-3ddb-a0bf-90b12530930a/ss_dying-gulf-stream-may-trigger.html) which cites 2 studies seems to be missing something.
..
The culprit is apparently melting sea ice and glaciers, which inject fresh water into the North Atlantic and weaken the stream.

.. If deep faults and vents are releasing heat into the Arctic, this would be an expected consequence. This is also why I believe more research is needed on deep ocean currents and temperatures. This might help to show if deep faults and vents are injecting much heat into our oceans and seas.


If they were, we would see it on the surface. Warm water rises, just like warm air.



ITN,
Not quite. What do you not understand about the Gulf Stream slowing ? It's possible they've confused the warmth given up by the Gulf stream with warm water rising from the sea floor. This could explain why the Gulf Stream is slowing while the Arctic is warming. After all, the Gulf Stream is transporting less heat to the Arctic since it is slowing, right ?
19-04-2018 09:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
..This article (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/34cb0f88-bca1-3ddb-a0bf-90b12530930a/ss_dying-gulf-stream-may-trigger.html) which cites 2 studies seems to be missing something.
..
The culprit is apparently melting sea ice and glaciers, which inject fresh water into the North Atlantic and weaken the stream.

.. If deep faults and vents are releasing heat into the Arctic, this would be an expected consequence. This is also why I believe more research is needed on deep ocean currents and temperatures. This might help to show if deep faults and vents are injecting much heat into our oceans and seas.


If they were, we would see it on the surface. Warm water rises, just like warm air.



ITN,
Not quite. What do you not understand about the Gulf Stream slowing ? It's possible they've confused the warmth given up by the Gulf stream with warm water rising from the sea floor. This could explain why the Gulf Stream is slowing while the Arctic is warming. After all, the Gulf Stream is transporting less heat to the Arctic since it is slowing, right ?


Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-04-2018 10:08
19-04-2018 17:36
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:


Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.



And no Holy Links ! Way to go ITN, now you are thinking for yourself ! I knew you could do it if you tried. That's the trouble with Americans like yourself, you need a European, Elske Norge !
19-04-2018 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.



And no Holy Links ! Way to go ITN, now you are thinking for yourself ! I knew you could do it if you tried. That's the trouble with Americans like yourself, you need a European, Elske Norge !


Holy Links are not a proof. I expect you to do your own footwork on researching this stuff.

Sailors know the Gulf Stream and what is does and where it goes. No Holy Link changes that.
You might start by learning geography.


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2018 17:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.



And no Holy Links ! Way to go ITN, now you are thinking for yourself ! I knew you could do it if you tried. That's the trouble with Americans like yourself, you need a European, Elske Norge !


Holy Links are not a proof. I expect you to do your own footwork on researching this stuff.

Sailors know the Gulf Stream and what is does and where it goes. No Holy Link changes that.
You might start by learning geography.



ITN,
..I crossed the Atlantic on a boat when I was a kid. We followed the Gulf Stream (https://goo.gl/images/Ypnas4) all the way to where it heads east. We followed that to the North Sea (https://goo.gl/images/aVrc1Z). We were going to Hamburg, Germany (https://www.google.com/search?q=hamburg%2C+germany&oq=hamburg%2C+germany&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4078j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). When we got to Aalesund, Norway (https://www.google.com/search?q=aalesund+norway&oq=aalesund+norway&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3743j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), it was kept warm just as the waters off of Norway's (https://www.google.com/search?q=norway&oq=norway&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3663j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) coast in the Arctic Circle by the Gulf Stream (https://goo.gl/images/xkDqj9). Anyone who's lived in Norway knows this.
..Yet in thinking for yourself you made an obviously wrong statement and then said that using a link as a reference is not proof. How can I prove that I lived with my grandmother Ovidie in Aalesund ? Are you going to contact my cousins and ask them if I am 1/2 Norwegian and if I lived in Norway ? You will need to do Due Diligence to find out if I am lying or not. The fact that there are websites about the current of the Gulf Stream does not make it wrong. Arguing such a minor point IMO shows desperation on your part.
..It is funny with what you've mentioned. I am a Shellback, a Holy Link for you;
https://www.veteransunited.com/network/the-navys-line-crossing-ceremony-revealed/
..When I crossed (Jun15, 1984, it was also my Norwegian Father's birthday) and the ship I was on; another Holy Link;
http://www.hullnumber.com/CV-63
..I've actually have circled the globe and have been on 5 of the 7 continents. And you've been to Oregon from Seattle, right ?
..Hmm, in my instance Holy Links are references to things that I have done and some of the places I've been, my own experiences. And since I am 1/2 Norwegian and started learning Engleske after Norske I can consider more than my own or one perspective.

..Fun Facts people. Perm, Russia is in Europe. Ekaterinburg, Russia is in Asia. The continental divide is just east of the Ural Mountains, about 25 miles west of Ekaterinburg.
..Germany became a country in 1849 so it is younger than the United States. Before then it, Poland, etc. was the Republic of Saxony. This might have been the 1st Reich.
..After WW II, by agreement Poland was given to communist Russia. I think it still had an actual cavalry unit. Kind of why they couldn't defend themselves against Germany.
..Germany occupied Norway during WW II because it had a dam that produced heavy water, needed for atomic weapons.
..In 1806 there was an earthquake in the Midwest which geologists said never happened. A Native American warrior named Tecumseh was a prophet. By all accounts he could accurately predict the future and did in fact predict the earthquake of about 1806. He's also quite famous.
..A white man that Native Americans left alone was a man named Simon Kenton. It was believed by Native Americans that the Great Spirit protected him because he survived injuries that killed other people. Kenton County Ohio is named after him.
..The Duwamish River in Seattle, Wa. is named after the Duwamish tribe. Also Mount Rainier's original name was Mount Tacoma ([url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article33225588.html [/url]) which in the Yakima's native tongue means "near to God". Yep, Yakima, Wa. is named after the tribe. A Yakima had met what he said was a spirit or spirits there and went and told his people about it.
..And with the Eastern Seaboard (https://goo.gl/images/5296Ho), the Labrador Current ( https://goo.gl/images/FjVfiz) sends it's cold water there. Now sharks are common in the summer off of Cape Cod, Ma. Where is the warm water coming from and why ? This is something that might be worth knowing. Besides, I've heard they have delicious lobsters and the best clam chowder in New England (https://goo.gl/images/TLCx4G).
..I think ITN most people will agree by using Holy Links that I can post less and if people wish to check out the links then that is up to them to decide.
Edited on 20-04-2018 17:17
20-04-2018 18:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
ITN,
About all you ever say is prove it to me. If you knew anything then you would not attack reference material as a holy link. This then leaves only your opinion and your ego. Kind of why posting with you is a waste of time.
After all, you don't accept the Gulf Stream as a current that flows north in the Atlantic Ocean. Yet you say you are thinking for yourself by disagreeing with everyone while saying it's your opinion and they need to accept your logic which ignores the observations of others.
20-04-2018 21:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
About all you ever say is prove it to me. If you knew anything then you would not attack reference material as a holy link. This then leaves only your opinion and your ego. Kind of why posting with you is a waste of time.
After all, you don't accept the Gulf Stream as a current that flows north in the Atlantic Ocean. Yet you say you are thinking for yourself by disagreeing with everyone while saying it's your opinion and they need to accept your logic which ignores the observations of others.


Come on James, by this time you know that nightmare is here only to feed his ego. He attacks everyone indiscriminately and you shouldn't be taking everything he says as personal.

He would have no problem telling a Nobel prize winner he didn't know what he was talking about as easily as he would litebrain.
20-04-2018 21:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.



And no Holy Links ! Way to go ITN, now you are thinking for yourself ! I knew you could do it if you tried. That's the trouble with Americans like yourself, you need a European, Elske Norge !


Holy Links are not a proof. I expect you to do your own footwork on researching this stuff.

Sailors know the Gulf Stream and what is does and where it goes. No Holy Link changes that.
You might start by learning geography.



ITN,
..I crossed the Atlantic on a boat when I was a kid. We followed the Gulf Stream (https://goo.gl/images/Ypnas4) all the way to where it heads east. We followed that to the North Sea (https://goo.gl/images/aVrc1Z). We were going to Hamburg, Germany (https://www.google.com/search?q=hamburg%2C+germany&oq=hamburg%2C+germany&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4078j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). When we got to Aalesund, Norway (https://www.google.com/search?q=aalesund+norway&oq=aalesund+norway&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3743j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), it was kept warm just as the waters off of Norway's (https://www.google.com/search?q=norway&oq=norway&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3663j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) coast in the Arctic Circle by the Gulf Stream (https://goo.gl/images/xkDqj9). Anyone who's lived in Norway knows this.
..Yet in thinking for yourself you made an obviously wrong statement and then said that using a link as a reference is not proof. How can I prove that I lived with my grandmother Ovidie in Aalesund ? Are you going to contact my cousins and ask them if I am 1/2 Norwegian and if I lived in Norway ? You will need to do Due Diligence to find out if I am lying or not. The fact that there are websites about the current of the Gulf Stream does not make it wrong. Arguing such a minor point IMO shows desperation on your part.
..It is funny with what you've mentioned. I am a Shellback, a Holy Link for you;
https://www.veteransunited.com/network/the-navys-line-crossing-ceremony-revealed/
..When I crossed (Jun15, 1984, it was also my Norwegian Father's birthday) and the ship I was on; another Holy Link;
http://www.hullnumber.com/CV-63
..I've actually have circled the globe and have been on 5 of the 7 continents. And you've been to Oregon from Seattle, right ?
..Hmm, in my instance Holy Links are references to things that I have done and some of the places I've been, my own experiences. And since I am 1/2 Norwegian and started learning Engleske after Norske I can consider more than my own or one perspective.

..Fun Facts people. Perm, Russia is in Europe. Ekaterinburg, Russia is in Asia. The continental divide is just east of the Ural Mountains, about 25 miles west of Ekaterinburg.
..Germany became a country in 1849 so it is younger than the United States. Before then it, Poland, etc. was the Republic of Saxony. This might have been the 1st Reich.
..After WW II, by agreement Poland was given to communist Russia. I think it still had an actual cavalry unit. Kind of why they couldn't defend themselves against Germany.
..Germany occupied Norway during WW II because it had a dam that produced heavy water, needed for atomic weapons.
..In 1806 there was an earthquake in the Midwest which geologists said never happened. A Native American warrior named Tecumseh was a prophet. By all accounts he could accurately predict the future and did in fact predict the earthquake of about 1806. He's also quite famous.
..A white man that Native Americans left alone was a man named Simon Kenton. It was believed by Native Americans that the Great Spirit protected him because he survived injuries that killed other people. Kenton County Ohio is named after him.
..The Duwamish River in Seattle, Wa. is named after the Duwamish tribe. Also Mount Rainier's original name was Mount Tacoma ([url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article33225588.html [/url]) which in the Yakima's native tongue means "near to God". Yep, Yakima, Wa. is named after the tribe. A Yakima had met what he said was a spirit or spirits there and went and told his people about it.
..And with the Eastern Seaboard (https://goo.gl/images/5296Ho), the Labrador Current ( https://goo.gl/images/FjVfiz) sends it's cold water there. Now sharks are common in the summer off of Cape Cod, Ma. Where is the warm water coming from and why ? This is something that might be worth knowing. Besides, I've heard they have delicious lobsters and the best clam chowder in New England (https://goo.gl/images/TLCx4G).
..I think ITN most people will agree by using Holy Links that I can post less and if people wish to check out the links then that is up to them to decide.


I see you've been Googling a lot. Too bad so much of it is either wrong, incomplete, or you've drawn the wrong conclusions from it.


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2018 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
About all you ever say is prove it to me.

You need to learn what a 'proof' is.
James___ wrote:
If you knew anything then you would not attack reference material as a holy link.

Holy Links are not a proof. Any idiot can bring up a website and say any stupidity they want to.
James___ wrote:
This then leaves only your opinion and your ego.

You might actually try to learn theories of science, mathematics, philosophy, and logic.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why posting with you is a waste of time.

First learn your subject.
James___ wrote:
After all, you don't accept the Gulf Stream as a current that flows north in the Atlantic Ocean.

But I do.
James___ wrote:
Yet you say you are thinking for yourself by disagreeing with everyone

I'm not disagreeing with everyone. You are not everyone. Neither is Wake.
James___ wrote:
while saying it's your opinion

Vacuous statement.
James___ wrote:
and they need to accept your logic

Not my logic. Logic is a closed system, like mathematics. I didn't invent logic. I do understand it though.
James___ wrote:
which ignores the observations of others.

Logic doesn't use observation. Observation does not override logic.

Observations are not a proof either. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2018 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
ITN,
About all you ever say is prove it to me. If you knew anything then you would not attack reference material as a holy link. This then leaves only your opinion and your ego. Kind of why posting with you is a waste of time.
After all, you don't accept the Gulf Stream as a current that flows north in the Atlantic Ocean. Yet you say you are thinking for yourself by disagreeing with everyone while saying it's your opinion and they need to accept your logic which ignores the observations of others.


Come on James, by this time you know that nightmare is here only to feed his ego. He attacks everyone indiscriminately and you shouldn't be taking everything he says as personal.

He would have no problem telling a Nobel prize winner he didn't know what he was talking about as easily as he would litebrain.


Just out to throw random insults today, eh Wake?

Did you know the Nobel prize is not a proof?


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2018 01:11
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
ITN,
I do think this is your forum. All it is is a mind fåk. Just your way of messing with people. It's all you do.
Wake, you're just as willing to straf mich.


@All,
. When ITN states Church of Global Warming he is ignoring scientific research. According to ice core samples we're going to get warmer because that's what our planet does. He says that is wrong but can only say he is thinking for himself.
.At the same time Wake states we can't effect our environment. We can. But their positions prevent any discussion or debate.
.The debate is over "is what we are doing effecting our climate". We don't know. Kind of why I have the physics experiment that I'm pursuing. Both Wake and ITN can post what we accept at the moment. I can to. I've read enough books that other people wrote. I have considered what they said. IMO I'd be expanding on what we know. An example of this is that I would show how research accomplished in 1852 is relevant today. I'd be taking things 1Step further.
Edited on 21-04-2018 01:37
21-04-2018 19:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
I do think this is your forum. All it is is a mind fåk. Just your way of messing with people. It's all you do.
Wake, you're just as willing to straf mich.


@All,
. When ITN states Church of Global Warming he is ignoring scientific research.

There is no such thing as 'scientific' research. There is just research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. It isn't a 'research' or a 'study'.
James___ wrote:
According to ice core samples we're going to get warmer because that's what our planet does.

Ice cores do not tell you the temperature of the planet any better than a few dozen thermometers do.
James___ wrote:
He says that is wrong but can only say he is thinking for himself.
.At the same time Wake states we can't effect our environment.

I'm saying that you have no idea what the Earth is going to do as far as temperature in the near future. The only predictable part of Earth's temperature is its orbit over thousands of years.
James___ wrote:
We can.

Not the kind of prediction you're talking about.
James___ wrote:
But their positions prevent any discussion or debate.

Funny. Seems like we all continue to make our various cases anyway. That's called 'debate'. Didn't you know?
James___ wrote:
The debate is over "is what we are doing effecting our climate".

Very little, if any. We certainly aren't changing the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
We don't know.

We do know. You keep ignoring physics.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why I have the physics experiment that I'm pursuing.

You keep talking about this mysterious 'physics experiment' you're going to do that falsifies existing theories of science. I think you're just blowing smoke again.
James___ wrote:
Both Wake and ITN can post what we accept at the moment.

So you agree with us then!
James___ wrote:
I can to.
'too' is what I believe you mean. You have not posted any physics.
James___ wrote:
I've read enough books that other people wrote.

How would anyone know? You haven't posted any physics. You HAVE posted a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with existing theories of science.
James___ wrote:
I have considered what they said. IMO I'd be expanding on what we know.

Don't think so. I think you're blowing smoke again.
James___ wrote:
An example of this is that I would show how research accomplished in 1852 is relevant today.

Of course it is. What does this show? Research conducted in the 1600's is relevant today.
James___ wrote:
I'd be taking things 1Step further.

You haven't yet!


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2018 13:04
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
ITN,
.Why the circular arguments? Most of your post was just that, an example;
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. It isn't a 'research' or a 'study'.

. When you make statements like that it leaves nothing to discuss. As you say, you want someone to give you a definition of what a climate is. That's not thinking for yourself. Just you playing mind games. I know you don't like white people. You say Europeans. Why you reject science yet say you are debating something that you reject.
You did say that it is your name that defines you. That is falsifiable as well. Into Darkness in many instances refers to evil. Hades is Into the Night. This is because that which is evil avoids the light so it cannot be seen. This is interesting because in Hindu writings there are places where the shadows run from themselves. Maybe that which is evil desires to flee from itself ?
Maybe it's not because it is stating a truth ?
22-04-2018 15:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
.Why the circular arguments? Most of your post was just that, an example;
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. It isn't a 'research' or a 'study'.

. When you make statements like that it leaves nothing to discuss. As you say, you want someone to give you a definition of what a climate is. That's not thinking for yourself. Just you playing mind games. I know you don't like white people. You say Europeans. Why you reject science yet say you are debating something that you reject.
You did say that it is your name that defines you. That is falsifiable as well. Into Darkness in many instances refers to evil. Hades is Into the Night. This is because that which is evil avoids the light so it cannot be seen. This is interesting because in Hindu writings there are places where the shadows run from themselves. Maybe that which is evil desires to flee from itself ?
Maybe it's not because it is stating a truth ?


James, why are you getting upset when you know nightmare is a moron? He can't even explain how water boils without resorting to obvious flaws in his understanding of the world around him.

Science is not his moronic belief system. It is the entire search for the explanations of the real world and their entire underlying causes. But when you have a closed mind and a blind eye to turn as nightmare has you can believe all is discovered. You can even believe that ridiculous and preposterous things.

I appreciate you are trying to find answers in your own way but I would again urge you to work on an overview instead of concentrating on the last thing you learned to explain everything.
22-04-2018 16:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake,
. When you claim to be Jewish and itn claims to have a Jewish wife so you can say I am a Nazi because I disagree with both of you, doesn't leave much to discuss.
.Ater all, you say we can't have an effect on the environment and itn agrees with you.
itn misses the days when Native Americans could raid another tribe killing it's men and kidnapping it's women. Sacajawea is proof of this Native American tradition.
Besides, he banned litesong because she didn't agree with him. Why I think it is his forum. That's the only moderation I've seen in here.

You can take this personally wake, there used to be a time when a person would learn a ? little something about what they're talking about. And you don't get it. The East River in NYC was cleaned up because people got tired of it being so polluted. I helped and not hurt NYC to help protect the environment. Yet that's an example that you and itn continue to ignore.
22-04-2018 19:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
..Can't edit previous post. it should say It helped and not hurt NYC...
..Cleaning up the East River helped New York City. The people there can swim in a river they couldn't swim in 20 years ago because of pollution. it makes people feel better about where they live. And wake, you say 300 million Indians in India use a river. During the time of pharaohs in Egypt, they had running water in the Indus River Valley in India. I think everybody is aware of this. That practice was stopped when that ruler passed away. The rulers that followed allowed things to resort to a more primitive way of life.
..There is no reason why we can't be environmentally responsible. The alternative in my opinion isn't worth it.
22-04-2018 21:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
.Why the circular arguments? Most of your post was just that, an example;
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.

Not a circular argument. The phrase 'scientific research' is a made up phrase, used as a buzzword. It is meaningless. There is just research. There is nothing inherently 'scientific' about any research or study.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a 'research' or a 'study'.

James___ wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. It isn't a 'research' or a 'study'.

Not a circular argument. I already gave the reasoning behind the definition of science, to you and others. I also described why philosophy defines 'science' and how.
James___ wrote:
When you make statements like that it leaves nothing to discuss.

We have already discussed it at length. Did you forget already?
James___ wrote:
As you say, you want someone to give you a definition of what a climate is.
No need. Most people describe 'climate' as 'weather over a long time'. Not even the Church of Global Warming disagrees with that (although some members do).
James___ wrote:
That's not thinking for yourself. Just you playing mind games.

It is YOU playing games here. It is YOU that has selective memory here.
James___ wrote:
I know you don't like white people.

Never said any such thing. I have no problem with 'white' people, 'black' people, 'yellow' people, or any other color. I don't consider anyone 'white', 'black', yellow', 'red', or any other color. There is no such thing as a pure race. Why do you keep on insisting on racism?
James___ wrote:
You say Europeans.

Europe is where they lived, is it not?
James___ wrote:
Why you reject science

I don't. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that rejects various theories of science.
James___ wrote:
yet say you are debating something that you reject.

If you are going to reject a theory of science, you had better show why it's falsified.
James___ wrote:
You did say that it is your name that defines you.

Never did. Again, your memory is faulty.

My moniker is a warning.
James___ wrote:
That is falsifiable as well.

Nope. It is a moniker I chose for myself. It does not need to be tested.
James___ wrote:
Into Darkness in many instances refers to evil.

Exactly right. Thus the warning in the moniker.
James___ wrote:
Hades is Into the Night.
You could say that.
James___ wrote:
This is because that which is evil avoids the light so it cannot be seen.
True as well.
James___ wrote:
This is interesting because in Hindu writings there are places where the shadows run from themselves.
I agree with such a writing.
James___ wrote:
Maybe that which is evil desires to flee from itself ?

Seems like a wise conclusion.
James___ wrote:
Maybe it's not because it is stating a truth ?

Perhaps a bit too conclusive, but in most cases at least, yes.

My moniker stands as a warning of the cost of society moving into the night of ignorance. You are well on the way there, though I tried to warn you.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-04-2018 21:04
22-04-2018 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Wake wrote:
James, why are you getting upset when you know nightmare is a moron? He can't even explain how water boils without resorting to obvious flaws in his understanding of the world around him.

Science is not his moronic belief system. It is the entire search for the explanations of the real world and their entire underlying causes. But when you have a closed mind and a blind eye to turn as nightmare has you can believe all is discovered. You can even believe that ridiculous and preposterous things.

I appreciate you are trying to find answers in your own way but I would again urge you to work on an overview instead of concentrating on the last thing you learned to explain everything.


No argument presented.

You you can do is insult others anymore, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2018 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
. When you claim to be Jewish

He never did.
James___ wrote:
and itn claims to have a Jewish wife

I do.
James___ wrote:
so you can say I am a Nazi because I disagree with both of you, doesn't leave much to discuss.

It doesn't take being a Jew or having a Jewish wife to call someone a Nazi. If you agree with a fascist style government, you're essentially a Nazi. It might help if you learned what fascism is.
James___ wrote:
.Ater all, you say we can't have an effect on the environment and itn agrees with you.

You can, at least for local regions. You can't warm the Earth, change the ozone layer, or modify the global climate.
James___ wrote:
itn misses the days when Native Americans could raid another tribe killing it's men and kidnapping it's women. Sacajawea is proof of this Native American tradition.

Racism. I don't miss such days at all. I never lived them.
James___ wrote:
Besides, he banned litesong

You really give me credit for that??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
James___ wrote:
because she didn't agree with him.

Litebeer is a he....at least if you believe anything he says at all.
James___ wrote:
Why I think it is his forum.

Nope. I thought about opening a forum someday though. Never did. I think a lot of forum software out there is pretty crappy. At least Branner has done an excellent job on this software. He's a pretty fair guy, too. We are not even living in the same nation though. He lives in Denmark, I live in the United States.
James___ wrote:
That's the only moderation I've seen in here.

Branner is the only one that moderates this forum.
James___ wrote:
You can take this personally wake, there used to be a time when a person would learn a ? little something about what they're talking about. And you don't get it.

You might try learning about statistical mathematics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the 1st law of thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann law, the Chapman cycle, the evils of racism, what 'fascism', 'falsifiability', 'heat', and 'thermal energy' mean, try to keep track of the conversation and work to reduce your selective memory problem, etc.
James___ wrote:
The East River in NYC was cleaned up because people got tired of it being so polluted.

True.
James___ wrote:
I helped and not hurt NYC to help protect the environment.

True.
James___ wrote:
Yet that's an example that you and itn continue to ignore.

I don't ignore it. I cleaned up Puget Sound here. People normally clean their own cars and houses too.

You can't control the weather beyond local effects. You can't destroy or modify the ozone layer. You can't change the temperature of the Earth.

You are making a false equivalence here, based on a previous compositional error.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2018 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
..Can't edit previous post. it should say It helped and not hurt NYC...

You seem to have succeeded. Having trouble with the 'edit' function?
James___ wrote:
..Cleaning up the East River helped New York City. The people there can swim in a river they couldn't swim in 20 years ago because of pollution. it makes people feel better about where they live. And wake, you say 300 million Indians in India use a river. During the time of pharaohs in Egypt, they had running water in the Indus River Valley in India. I think everybody is aware of this. That practice was stopped when that ruler passed away. The rulers that followed allowed things to resort to a more primitive way of life.
..There is no reason why we can't be environmentally responsible. The alternative in my opinion isn't worth it.


There is no reason at all. It is important to recognize what you can and cannot have an effect on. Continued compositional error.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2018 00:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
. When you claim to be Jewish and itn claims to have a Jewish wife so you can say I am a Nazi because I disagree with both of you, doesn't leave much to discuss.
.Ater all, you say we can't have an effect on the environment and itn agrees with you.
itn misses the days when Native Americans could raid another tribe killing it's men and kidnapping it's women. Sacajawea is proof of this Native American tradition.
Besides, he banned litesong because she didn't agree with him. Why I think it is his forum. That's the only moderation I've seen in here.

You can take this personally wake, there used to be a time when a person would learn a ? little something about what they're talking about. And you don't get it. The East River in NYC was cleaned up because people got tired of it being so polluted. I helped and not hurt NYC to help protect the environment. Yet that's an example that you and itn continue to ignore.


I have asked you to actually quote where I said anything of the sort. And instead you have made this claim again. And again with no quote.

What is with that? Do you have bad dreams at night of people ganging up on you? Dreams so vivid that you will publish them as truth?

Not even nightmare has disagreed that ACTUAL environmentalism is a bad thing. It is the phony, politically inspired, we disagree with as far as I know.

So where are your claims coming from? Where did you get the idea that anyone thought that cleaning the East River was a bad idea? Or the River Seine in Paris?
23-04-2018 12:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake,
.I`m not going to waste a lot of time going back over the posts. It is a control issue with you and itn. Someone's got to look bad and it won't be either one of you.
23-04-2018 12:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
.I`m not going to waste a lot of time going back over the posts. It is a control issue with you and itn. Someone's got to look bad and it won't be either one of you.


Actually it is a serious memory problem of yours. If anyone contradicts you, you have a need to remember slights that never really occurred.
23-04-2018 18:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
.I`m not going to waste a lot of time going back over the posts. It is a control issue with you and itn. Someone's got to look bad and it won't be either one of you.


Actually it is a serious memory problem of yours. If anyone contradicts you, you have a need to remember slights that never really occurred.


Read my previous post. Here's what you and your girlfriend miss;
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/thermodynamics/modal/v/maxwell-boltzmann-distribution

..Solar radiation increases the amount of background radiation in the atmosphere. This is why one area would be at 300K and the other at 200K. And when he heats up the 300K volume the KE increases in the molecules because they absorb heat.
..And wake, as I've said many times, CO2's specific effect as well as O2's in the ability of air to absorb and release heat has not been demonstrated.
..And you and ITN will contradict me on this saying that atmospheric gasses can not absorb background or solar radiation. Their absorption and emission spectrums will change when their velocities change.
..Myself, I think since both of you have a lack of understanding of physics you don't get it. After all, all solar radiation is refracted if it's not reflected in the atmosphere. And the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would give a better idea of how atmospheric gasses are influenced when the composition of those gasses are changed. I've seen no research on this and this goes back to my saying that atmospheric gasses can move heat. This is why their KE increases. But you and itn can't even get the basics right. That does get old.
Edited on 23-04-2018 18:41
23-04-2018 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
.I`m not going to waste a lot of time going back over the posts. It is a control issue with you and itn. Someone's got to look bad and it won't be either one of you.


Actually it is a serious memory problem of yours. If anyone contradicts you, you have a need to remember slights that never really occurred.


Read my previous post. Here's what you and your girlfriend miss;
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/thermodynamics/modal/v/maxwell-boltzmann-distribution

..Solar radiation increases the amount of background radiation in the atmosphere.

Nonsensical statement. Define 'background radiation' in this statement.
James___ wrote:
This is why one area would be at 300K and the other at 200K.
No place in the atmosphere gets that cold, not even in the tropopause.
James___ wrote:
And when he heats up the 300K volume the KE increases in the molecules because they absorb heat.

No, the thermal energy increases. Thermal energy is a specific kind of kinetic energy.
James___ wrote:
..And wake, as I've said many times, CO2's specific effect as well as O2's in the ability of air to absorb and release heat has not been demonstrated.
It has. See specific heat index charts.
James___ wrote:
..And you and ITN will contradict me on this saying that atmospheric gasses can not absorb background or solar radiation.
They can. You still haven't defined 'background radiation'.
James___ wrote:
Their absorption and emission spectrums will change when their velocities change.

Nope. The absorption and emission spectrums are not affected by velocity at all. See information about spectrometers.
James___ wrote:
..Myself, I think since both of you have a lack of understanding of physics you don't get it.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring physics here.
James___ wrote:
After all, all solar radiation is refracted if it's not reflected in the atmosphere.
Neither. It is either absorbed or it passes straight through. The Earth's surface reflects some frequencies and absorbs others, though.
James___ wrote:
And the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would give a better idea of how atmospheric gasses are influenced when the composition of those gasses are changed.
Non-sequitur.
James___ wrote:
I've seen no research on this
Because it's non-sequitur.
James___ wrote:
and this goes back to my saying that atmospheric gasses can move heat.
You can't move heat. Heat simply is. If you are saying the atmosphere heats, you would be correct. The atmosphere heats by conduction, convection, and radiance, thus tending to equalize thermal energy in the atmosphere while also radiating energy into space just like the surface does.
James___ wrote:
This is why their KE increases.

Same Sun output, same energy output. Same Earth temperature.

The only way to change the temperature of the Earth is to change the output of the Sun.

No gas or vapor has the capability to change the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
But you and itn can't even get the basics right. That does get old.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that doesn't even get the basics right.

Look up specific heat index charts (especially the values for dry air, water vapor, liquid water, and carbon dioxide), the meaning of 'heat', the meaning of 'thermal energy', the meaning of 'background radiation', the meaning of 'electromagnetic energy', the meaning of 'absorption', the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, the vertical energy profile of the atmosphere, emission spectra of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, and today's aviation winds aloft forecast (which contains temperature forecasts in the atmosphere at specific points), and the conservation of energy law.


The Parrot Killer
24-04-2018 18:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
James___ wrote:

and this goes back to my saying that atmospheric gasses can move heat.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't move heat. Heat simply is.
[quote]

ITN,
.Why like Wake do you make obviously wrong statements ? The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Botlzmann constant both say heat can be moved.
You have posted many times that you understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann constant represents in science yet now you say heat can't be moved because something "is" or "is not". And if something that "is" ever changes then it never was because then it is falsified.
.Your circular debate has been stale for some time now.
24-04-2018 18:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:

and this goes back to my saying that atmospheric gasses can move heat.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't move heat. Heat simply is.


ITN,
.Why like Wake do you make obviously wrong statements ? The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Botlzmann constant both say heat can be moved.

No law of thermodynamics says that heat is 'moved'. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a constant of proportionality for an ideal black body (which doesn't exist in the real world). It is not describing heat at all. It describes temperature (not heat) and light (not heat). The Stefan-Boltzmann law where it is used does not describe heat either. Radiance is not necessarily heat. Neither is temperature.
James___ wrote:
You have posted many times that you understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann constant represents in science yet now you say heat can't be moved because something "is" or "is not".

Heat is not 'moved'. Heat simply is.
James___ wrote:
And if something that "is" ever changes then it never was because then it is falsified.
.Your circular debate has been stale for some time now.

Not a circular argument. You keep making the same mistakes. I keep correcting you with the same theories of science, which you keep ignoring.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2018 00:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
I opened the ignore tab and was surprised to see nightmare make two postings that were nearly spot on! Though I would describe heat as the presence of a level of thermal energy.
25-04-2018 18:26
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:

No law of thermodynamics says that heat is 'moved'.
[quote]James___ wrote:
If heat "flows", it moves. The search link cites many examples.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermodynamics+heat+moved&oq=thermodynamics+heat+moved&aqs=chrome..69i57.8991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Into the Night wrote:
You keep making the same mistakes. I keep correcting you with the same theories of science, which you keep ignoring.


..Same garbage as ever. Neither you nor wake have any understanding of science. You just want to attack someone. This is what trolls do.
2 a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll
25-04-2018 20:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

No law of thermodynamics says that heat is 'moved'.
[quote]James___ wrote:
If heat "flows", it moves. The search link cites many examples.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermodynamics+heat+moved&oq=thermodynamics+heat+moved&aqs=chrome..69i57.8991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Into the Night wrote:
You keep making the same mistakes. I keep correcting you with the same theories of science, which you keep ignoring.


..Same garbage as ever. Neither you nor wake have any understanding of science. You just want to attack someone. This is what trolls do.
2 a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/heat
26-04-2018 01:45
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

No law of thermodynamics says that heat is 'moved'.
[quote]James___ wrote:
If heat "flows", it moves. The search link cites many examples.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermodynamics+heat+moved&oq=thermodynamics+heat+moved&aqs=chrome..69i57.8991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Into the Night wrote:
You keep making the same mistakes. I keep correcting you with the same theories of science, which you keep ignoring.


..Same garbage as ever. Neither you nor wake have any understanding of science. You just want to attack someone. This is what trolls do.
2 a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/heat


...Wake,
.. You and ITN have been saying that I am wrong for saying what is in your link.
E = 3/2KT when talking about a volume of gas. It's E = 3/2RT when talking about a single molecule.
.In the singular, 3/2RT is the temperature of one molecule. 3/2KT refers to heat because it averages a volume of molecules. At what point do you and ITN not understand that ? Yet you both say I don't understand this.
.And with black body radiation, heat moves from the black body to it's surroundings if the black body is warmer than it's environment. How am I wrong ?
..I know what I'm doing wrong wake. You and itn are both Americans. All you know is trying to make someone look bad because taking the time to learn something is too much effort for you. Why else would 2 people claim that heat doesn't move ? To try and make someone look bad.
. Either that or you and itn want guys to dance with you because you don't like women. Usually guys try to impress women and not wanting the attention of other men for no other reason than having a guy's attention.
Edited on 26-04-2018 02:11
26-04-2018 04:44
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

No law of thermodynamics says that heat is 'moved'.
[quote]James___ wrote:
If heat "flows", it moves. The search link cites many examples.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermodynamics+heat+moved&oq=thermodynamics+heat+moved&aqs=chrome..69i57.8991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Into the Night wrote:
You keep making the same mistakes. I keep correcting you with the same theories of science, which you keep ignoring.


..Same garbage as ever. Neither you nor wake have any understanding of science. You just want to attack someone. This is what trolls do.
2 a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/heat


...Wake,
.. You and ITN have been saying that I am wrong for saying what is in your link.
E = 3/2KT when talking about a volume of gas. It's E = 3/2RT when talking about a single molecule.
.In the singular, 3/2RT is the temperature of one molecule. 3/2KT refers to heat because it averages a volume of molecules. At what point do you and ITN not understand that ? Yet you both say I don't understand this.
.And with black body radiation, heat moves from the black body to it's surroundings if the black body is warmer than it's environment. How am I wrong ?
..I know what I'm doing wrong wake. You and itn are both Americans. All you know is trying to make someone look bad because taking the time to learn something is too much effort for you. Why else would 2 people claim that heat doesn't move ? To try and make someone look bad.
. Either that or you and itn want guys to dance with you because you don't like women. Usually guys try to impress women and not wanting the attention of other men for no other reason than having a guy's attention.


James, let me take a stab at this...

Heat is not thermal energy, heat is the movement of that thermal energy either by conduction or convection. Does that simplify it for you? This is why an insulator keeps you warmer(or cooler) by REDUCING heat. That's the way I understand it anyway. Heck, maybe I'm wrong too.
Edited on 26-04-2018 04:49
26-04-2018 17:03
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James, let me take a stab at this...

Heat is not thermal energy, heat is the movement of that thermal energy either by conduction or convection. Does that simplify it for you? This is why an insulator keeps you warmer(or cooler) by REDUCING heat. That's the way I understand it anyway. Heck, maybe I'm wrong too.



GasGuzzler,
..temperature Kt is a single gas molecule. heat is the average KE of a volume of gas. I am not sure why nobody understands this. Maybe you guys can understand this ?

..PV = (1/3)[mNaC^2] = RT

Therefore: 1/3 [MC^2] = RT/Na = kT

and the quantity k (= R/NA) is known as Boltzmann's constant (k) .

The equation for one molecule may therefore be rewritten as:

(1/3)[MC^2] = kT

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Thermal%20physics/Kinetic%20theory%20of%20matter/text/Kinetic_theory_and_gas_laws/index.html

..RT/N refers to a volume while kT refers to a single molecule (RT divided by Na equals kT, a single molecule). And a body (mass) of any type cannot radiate energy unless that energy is going to a less excited medium >> the internal energy per mole of gas, u, is: u = 3NkT/2 = (3/2) RT. https://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/sophlab/ther_18.htm
And this is in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. the above equation would quantify the heat moving from a black body to an environment that is a gas.
..Anymore I think I am burned out on this. If dark matter http://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/ is treated as a gas then the above math might help to show how it interacts with our atmosphere. This is because it would allow for black body radiation without conduction or convection being needed.

had to capitalize mc and c so Nac would be NaC since the Na and C represent different values. And with dark matter, some scientists believe it is actually neutrinos.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10564
Edited on 26-04-2018 17:26
26-04-2018 21:29
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
..@All,
.Will stop posting in here. I am sorry if people can't understand that 3/2kT * Na (molecules in a mol) = heat. https://www.google.com/search?q=3%2F2Rt+%3D+heat&oq=3%2F2Rt+%3D+heat&aqs=chrome..69i57.5727j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

..And if a black body suffers entropy without the area around it warming, then it could be considered proof as "empty space" because temperature is usually associated with the rate of vibration.
..With this https://www.thoughtco.com/kinetic-theory-of-gas-rms-example-609465 , rms speeds will very for different gas molecules. This only matters if you want to say that 3/2kT applies to a specific gas molecule. This might be why 3/2RT matters, it's the average KE for a molar mass using Avogrado's Number.
..And in understanding our atmosphere, this matters.
.GasGuzzler, nothing personal but I get this and with the experiment I've mentioned, there are 2 ways it can be tried at the same time. By letting a weather balloon under inflated with atmospheric gases expand just as a weather balloon under inflated but with a port/valve that can open to the vacuum around it. Since pressure would be equalized, the elasticity of the balloon would need to be known (because of contraction of the balloon) to prevent as little loss as possible of the atmospheric gasses in that balloon.This is because exposing the molecules in the experiment directly to the upper troposphere/tropopause should have a greater occurrence of CH2O and O2. If so then this would demonstrate that the cold dark vacuum of space is performing work. That can only happen if something is there. And then we are back to talking about those zippy little neutrinos which we haven't actually talked about.
..With heat, it might be that a molecule that is 3/2kT is conserved energy if it's KE does not change from before to after an event. But when energy is passed to a thermometer (or radiated) causing an effect then that energy is considered as "heat" because it has moved from the molecule (hot) to the thermometer (environment) (cold).
Edited on 26-04-2018 21:51
26-04-2018 23:18
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
..@All,
..There are one way valves that could be controlled so when air pressure is low then it could open and when the cylinder starts to contract, the valve can close. A weather balloon could also be used to expand a cylinder as it expands. The cylinders expansion and contraction could be independent of the weather balloon. This would allow for the weather balloon to be deflated so it can float back down to earth rather than rupturing or popping which is the usual method for retrieving what was floated into the upper atmosphere.
.Maybe I'm just disappointed because in Junior High school I couldn't afford to be in the model rocket club ?
.The attached image is an example of a one way check valve.
Attached image:


Edited on 26-04-2018 23:22
27-04-2018 16:59
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
@All,
I don't mean to sound like an **** but even Dark Matter helps to explain precession and why light from a distant start appears to move away from our Sun when observed during an eclipse.
.. I sometimes think the most important aspect of what Einstein predicted, that light from a distant star bends as it passes the Sun. This is because with the Sun between the Earth and the star that was observed, it would appear that the star moved AWAY from the Sun. The illustrations in the documentary show the opposite. This is where people see what they expect to see.
>>
1:05:30 start watching https://youtu.be/N0x9gApvuGo

1:06:30 statement made "according to Einstein an optical illusion would appear that the star would have moved away from the Sun by less than 1 mm.

..People expect gravity to attract and not repel so all illustrations show what we expect to see.
..@ the 21:34 mark of the documentary they say that the Sun's gravity causes light to bend around it (postcession). In the diagram at the 22:26 mark, is the solid line the path that light should follow and the broken line the path he predicts ? Is that the moving away from the Sun as mentioned after the 1:06:30 mark of the documentary ? I can't read German
I used a translator and lichtstral (licht stral) is light stripe. Is the 0.84" deviation a light stripe ?
The documentary itself shows there is confusion in whether the light from a distant star moved towards or away from our Sun.
..The luminous matter in galaxies cannot produce the extended, flat rotation curves characteristic of spiral galaxies (Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978, Bosma 1981), which is generally taken to indicate that the mass in the outer parts of galaxies is dominated by dark matter.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~gpetitpas/Research/DarkMatter.html

..And this could mean that if the amount of energy emitted from a black body exposed to a Joules-Thomson Field increases then does this mean that Dark Matter is a better conductor of heat than gases in our atmosphere ?
..My experiment might help to shed some light on this. Then we might realize a better understanding of how our atmosphere works and what can damage it or change it's inherent properties.
Edited on 27-04-2018 17:22
27-04-2018 23:21
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
. When you claim to be Jewish and itn claims to have a Jewish wife so you can say I am a Nazi because I disagree with both of you, doesn't leave much to discuss.
.Ater all, you say we can't have an effect on the environment and itn agrees with you.
itn misses the days when Native Americans could raid another tribe killing it's men and kidnapping it's women. Sacajawea is proof of this Native American tradition.
Besides, he banned litesong because she didn't agree with him. Why I think it is his forum. That's the only moderation I've seen in here.

You can take this personally wake, there used to be a time when a person would learn a ? little something about what they're talking about. And you don't get it. The East River in NYC was cleaned up because people got tired of it being so polluted. I helped and not hurt NYC to help protect the environment. Yet that's an example that you and itn continue to ignore.


1. I never claimed to be Jewish. For the uninformed that is a religion and I am Catholic. I said that I had a suspicion that my mother's father was Jewish because he spoke Yiddish, or more properly swore in Yiddish. I was careful to say that when you entered New York through Ellis Island that the easiest places to find housing were in the German/Jew sections of the city.

Afterwards AND TO YOU I said that investigating his name I discovered that he was actually a member of the Austrian royal family.

And again you let the lies pour out of your mouth for what end? To impress yourself? YOU helped "clean up" the east river?? How, by crapping in a bag and driving it into New Jersey to dump? The contamination is from sewage overflows during heavy rains that overload the sewage treatment systems and consists almost entirely of high nitrogen from the "brown water" This does not smell but does burn the eyes of swimmers.

The original sewage treatment plants were installed in the late 1940's and new ones were built as the city expanded.

Tell you what junior - going on a class trip to pick up trash along the shoreline does not count as helping to clean up the East River.

Enough of your crap now. This is a discussion group for AGW and because you have these wild-eyed ideas that are totally wrong doesn't mean you should have a fit.

What's more I believe that nightmare knows a great deal about history and will challenge your weak ideas of Sacajawea.
28-04-2018 02:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake,
..Why are you changing the subject? You and ITN have both claimed that I don't know science. I realized a long time ago that if my experiment works that an explanation would be needed for why work is being performed when little if anything should be happening.
.. This is what people haven't considered about a Joules-Thomson field. When gasses move away from each other, is it empty space or do neutrinos (dark matter) fill it ? This is where I don't know if neutrinos can pass through matter. This matters because if a field of neutrinos conserves it's energy then how can you tell it's there or what it's doing?
.. This might be like when Carbon Molecule 51 almost wasn't discovered because it was too common. It showed up as glitches in observations pretty much the same way that neutrinos do.
.. I have sent this link to a scientist that I hope will consider the experiment might be worth trying.
Edited on 28-04-2018 03:07
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate The Gulf Stream:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
The Gulf Stream (for Don from Mexico )1507-09-2017 00:25
Is The Gulf Stream slowing down?2422-10-2015 23:02
▲ 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