Remember me
▼ Content

Angular Momentum



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
14-08-2017 21:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James,

You have no clue as to what the kenetic energy of a gas is. If you did you would understand that the momentum of a gas is never considered because what you are talking about is kinetic energy. Only internal knietic energy. That is all that accounts for/is temperature.


If they were only measuring internal energy then they wouldn't say
3/2kT = [1/2mv^2] = KE.
If it will make you feel better I'll agree with you. Velocity has nothing to do with heat or temperature. An ice cube that has 0 velocity is a good example. All of it's energy is internal. Thanks for pointing out that I really am an idiot.
Actually I'm not, just in the wrong place.

Jim


An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature.

The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum.

You have no clue.


You haven't studied physics at all, have you ? You need to watch the first 2 minutes of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsa4aAdpHfY


Jim, Tim is correct and I can hardly believe you're coming up with this off-the-wall crap about how someone else doesn't understand physics.


Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ?
I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ?
WEAK !
14-08-2017 21:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/
Edited on 14-08-2017 21:58
14-08-2017 22:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?
14-08-2017 22:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?
14-08-2017 23:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 00:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.
15-08-2017 04:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.


Subjective statement. To some it seems complicated. To others, not so much.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 04:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


Since atmospheric gases can not penetrate the ice cube it is not conduction. Your lack of studying science shows.
15-08-2017 06:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


Since atmospheric gases can not penetrate the ice cube it is not conduction. Your lack of studying science shows.


Ice is permeable to atmospheric gases. It DOES penetrate the ice.

Too slowly to heat the interior of the ice much though. Most of that heat conduction is on the surface.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 07:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.


Subjective statement. To some it seems complicated. To others, not so much.


OK - what size and mass is a photon?
15-08-2017 19:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.

It certainly is complicated. I have no problem with differential and integral calculus, and I have a fairly good understanding of vector calculus, but I will admit that I find the tensor notation used in Einstein's field equations rather challenging. I think you have to be a pretty good mathematician to be able to properly understand Einstein's work.
15-08-2017 19:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.

It certainly is complicated. I have no problem with differential and integral calculus, and I have a fairly good understanding of vector calculus, but I will admit that I find the tensor notation used in Einstein's field equations rather challenging. I think you have to be a pretty good mathematician to be able to properly understand Einstein's work.


Not to mention that quantum mechanics is not designed to give you an answer but to give you nothing more than a possibility.
15-08-2017 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.

It certainly is complicated. I have no problem with differential and integral calculus, and I have a fairly good understanding of vector calculus, but I will admit that I find the tensor notation used in Einstein's field equations rather challenging. I think you have to be a pretty good mathematician to be able to properly understand Einstein's work.


Not to mention that quantum mechanics is not designed to give you an answer but to give you nothing more than a possibility.


Some does, some doesn't. It depends on the area of quantum mechanics you are talking about.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 00:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Not to mention that quantum mechanics is not designed to give you an answer but to give you nothing more than a possibility.


Some does, some doesn't. It depends on the area of quantum mechanics you are talking about.


Maybe you better explain that to Heisenberg and Dirac.
16-08-2017 05:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Not to mention that quantum mechanics is not designed to give you an answer but to give you nothing more than a possibility.


Some does, some doesn't. It depends on the area of quantum mechanics you are talking about.


Maybe you better explain that to Heisenberg and Dirac.


Why? Do you think they don't understand it?


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2017 02:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


The Einstein extensions may look complex in the math, but it really is simple in principle. It's just that people are usually scared of the integral symbol.

It's like white lab coats. People just seize up when they see one.


It is simple only in the widest possible manner. The math looks complicated because it is complicated.

It certainly is complicated. I have no problem with differential and integral calculus, and I have a fairly good understanding of vector calculus, but I will admit that I find the tensor notation used in Einstein's field equations rather challenging. I think you have to be a pretty good mathematician to be able to properly understand Einstein's work.


Not to mention that quantum mechanics is not designed to give you an answer but to give you nothing more than a possibility.

Einstein's field equations are, of course, central to general relativity, but yes, quantum mechanics is awfully tricky too.
18-08-2017 10:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


I do know that.

That is what temperature is. The collision of molecules due to their velocity with respect to each other. How fast stuff is vibrating.

That has nothing to do with momentum.

A hot gas at rest, has zero momentum, collectively. It still has temperature. It has thermal energy which can be used to do work.
18-08-2017 17:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


I do know that.

That is what temperature is. The collision of molecules due to their velocity with respect to each other. How fast stuff is vibrating.

That has nothing to do with momentum.

A hot gas at rest, has zero momentum, collectively. It still has temperature. It has thermal energy which can be used to do work.


And it still has conduction which is different than his description of angular momentum.
19-08-2017 00:06
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.


And why do collisions take place? Because the atmosphere is 33 degrees colder than the earth surface? Or because the surface transfer energy to the atmosphere causing acceleration of near-surface particles?

The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.


Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.


If the atmosphere has fewer collisions, less kinetic energy, less speed, how can slow moving molecules increase the speed of fast moving molecules?

It can´t. Mixing a low energy density state with a high energy density state, will only result in dilution. A cold fluid is always a cooler on a hot surface.

If you persist with your fantasy about the cold fluid "air" transferring energy heating the solid hot surface, you need a source in non-greenhouse thermodynamics.

What data and what theory supports the claim that the cold fluid "air", can increase the temperature of its own heat source?
Edited on 19-08-2017 00:10
19-08-2017 00:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.


And why do collisions take place? Because the atmosphere is 33 degrees colder than the earth surface? Or because the surface transfer energy to the atmosphere causing acceleration of near-surface particles?

The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.


Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.


If the atmosphere has fewer collisions, less kinetic energy, less speed, how can slow moving molecules increase the speed of fast moving molecules?

It can´t. Mixing a low energy density state with a high energy density state, will only result in dilution. A cold fluid is always a cooler on a hot surface.

If you persist with your fantasy about the cold fluid "air" transferring energy heating the solid hot surface, you need a source in non-greenhouse thermodynamics.

What data and what theory supports the claim that the cold fluid "air", can increase the temperature of its own heat source?


It's about time that you showed up again. That way litebeer can call you names as well.
19-08-2017 02:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.


And why do collisions take place?
The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.


Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.


If the atmosphere has fewer collisions, less kinetic energy, less speed, how can slow moving molecules increase the speed of fast moving molecules?

It can´t. Mixing a low energy density state with a high energy density state, will only result in dilution. A cold fluid is always a cooler on a hot surface.

If you persist with your fantasy about the cold fluid "air" transferring energy heating the solid hot surface, you need a source in non-greenhouse thermodynamics.



LT,
Myself, I believe that the Van Allen Radiation Belts excites our atmosphere between the Arctic and Antarctica.
One way to find out if a cold environment like the tropopause transports heat is to fill a container in the tropopause and then reduce the volume of the container. If inside the container warms then it might be considered that atmospheric gases are releasing stored energy.
19-08-2017 10:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.


And why do collisions take place?
The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.


Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.


If the atmosphere has fewer collisions, less kinetic energy, less speed, how can slow moving molecules increase the speed of fast moving molecules?

It can´t. Mixing a low energy density state with a high energy density state, will only result in dilution. A cold fluid is always a cooler on a hot surface.

If you persist with your fantasy about the cold fluid "air" transferring energy heating the solid hot surface, you need a source in non-greenhouse thermodynamics.



LT,
Myself, I believe that the Van Allen Radiation Belts excites our atmosphere between the Arctic and Antarctica.

Yes, you have described your religion several times now.
James_ wrote:
One way to find out if a cold environment like the tropopause transports heat is to fill a container in the tropopause and then reduce the volume of the container. If inside the container warms then it might be considered that atmospheric gases are releasing stored energy.

Too bad you can't understand gas laws.


The Parrot Killer
19-08-2017 16:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
James_ wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.

Into the Night wrote:
And why do collisions take place?
The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.

Too bad you can't understand gas laws.


It seems you are the one who is lost. ITN asks >> And why do collisions take place? <<

I'd give 2 reasons. One is the Van Allen Radiation belts expanding our atmosphere and the 2nd is a gas like CO2 being excited by solar radiation that is in it's absorption spectrum. This in turn would allow CO2 to excite other atmospheric gases that have less kinetic energy.
And ITN, the only reason you claim other people use religion to understand science is because you want people to accept what you say lest you attack them as well. After all you do continually show IMO that you are ignorant of science.
19-08-2017 17:04
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The link is to atmospheric temperatures. It shows that the heat that warms our planet comes through an area that is about -40° C. It also shows that the stratosphere warms above the ozone layer.
Because theoretically a place as cold as the tropopause can not warm our atmosphere. If heat can be conserved as angular momentum then that could allow for heat to pass through such a cold area only to have it's potential realized in the lower troposphere which has more kinetic energy according to Boltzmann's constant. And it's this reason why I believe that
1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 mass * (v^2 = linear velocity * angular velocity) = KE.

After all, energy it has been said can not be created nor destroyed.

https://goo.gl/images/9wN43Z

And once again ITN will post proclamations because he doesn't understand science.
19-08-2017 17:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.
19-08-2017 18:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim
19-08-2017 22:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.


And why do collisions take place?
The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.


Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.


If the atmosphere has fewer collisions, less kinetic energy, less speed, how can slow moving molecules increase the speed of fast moving molecules?

It can´t. Mixing a low energy density state with a high energy density state, will only result in dilution. A cold fluid is always a cooler on a hot surface.

If you persist with your fantasy about the cold fluid "air" transferring energy heating the solid hot surface, you need a source in non-greenhouse thermodynamics.



LT,
Myself, I believe that the Van Allen Radiation Belts excites our atmosphere between the Arctic and Antarctica.
One way to find out if a cold environment like the tropopause transports heat is to fill a container in the tropopause and then reduce the volume of the container. If inside the container warms then it might be considered that atmospheric gases are releasing stored energy.


If you "reduce the volume" you are compressing the gas in the container and that does two things: it puts the energy in the gas in a smaller volume and you are adding additional energy to compress that volume.

So of course it will warm. It means absolutely nothing.
19-08-2017 22:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.

Into the Night wrote:
And why do collisions take place?
The kinetic energy, including the collisions, is an effect of heat transfer to the fluid from the solid. An effect is not a cause.

Too bad you can't understand gas laws.


It seems you are the one who is lost. ITN asks >> And why do collisions take place? <<

I'd give 2 reasons. One is the Van Allen Radiation belts expanding our atmosphere and the 2nd is a gas like CO2 being excited by solar radiation that is in it's absorption spectrum. This in turn would allow CO2 to excite other atmospheric gases that have less kinetic energy.
And ITN, the only reason you claim other people use religion to understand science is because you want people to accept what you say lest you attack them as well. After all you do continually show IMO that you are ignorant of science.
19-08-2017 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:

Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)
Jim


I really don't know where in hell you get your ideas.

The troposphere isn't being warmed by the stratosphere. It is being warmed by the electro-magnetic radiation from the Sun. VISIBLE AND NEAR IR LIGHT. Also a little ultra-violet but that drops off very rapidly as the frequency increases.

The atmosphere is basically invisible to these light frequencies. It does heat water vapor a little on the way in but not much. Some of this energy is lost to Raleigh scattering. Most of it makes it to the ground where it heats whatever it strikes.

This information is not secret and is readily available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Edited on 19-08-2017 23:06
19-08-2017 23:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

The atmosphere is basically invisible to these light frequencies. It does heat water vapor a little on the way in but not much. Some of this energy is lost to Raleigh scattering. Most of it makes it to the ground where it heats whatever it strikes.

This information is not secret and is readily available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget



And yet I disagree with you. I think it would be a waste of my time to try to explain to you why. You need to be right. That's about all that matters to you.
19-08-2017 23:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

The atmosphere is basically invisible to these light frequencies. It does heat water vapor a little on the way in but not much. Some of this energy is lost to Raleigh scattering. Most of it makes it to the ground where it heats whatever it strikes.

This information is not secret and is readily available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget



And yet I disagree with you. I think it would be a waste of my time to try to explain to you why. You need to be right. That's about all that matters to you.


You don't have any time to waste. Tell us all about this experiment you were going to have a college run. Apparently you don't know when educated people are trying to politely humor you.
20-08-2017 00:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

The atmosphere is basically invisible to these light frequencies. It does heat water vapor a little on the way in but not much. Some of this energy is lost to Raleigh scattering. Most of it makes it to the ground where it heats whatever it strikes.

This information is not secret and is readily available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget



And yet I disagree with you. I think it would be a waste of my time to try to explain to you why. You need to be right. That's about all that matters to you.


You don't have any time to waste. Tell us all about this experiment you were going to have a college run. Apparently you don't know when educated people are trying to politely humor you.


Wake,
Is that all you have ? That doesn't leave much to talk about. It could be they thought I was you. But I think it's as you said, they have an answer that they`ve accepted.
20-08-2017 00:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Is that the best you can do to show me and everyone else that I am wrong ? I think of off the wall crap ? That's how you show that you and the people that you like know science ? WEAK !


Jim, you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. And your posting demonstrates that you would rather call others bullies than admit that you're incorrect.

This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?


Since atmospheric gases can not penetrate the ice cube it is not conduction. Your lack of studying science shows.


You can sit alone with your pals on this group and evince ignorance on such a level that no rational person can deal with you. Any normal person would understand without even thinking about it that in order for a warmer substance to heat a cooler substance all it takes is a connection. An ice cube flying through the air touches how many molecules would you suppose?

Argue with a pig and all you do is get muddy.
20-08-2017 00:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:


This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?[/quote]

Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?[/quote]


You can sit alone with your pals on this group and evince ignorance on such a level that no rational person can deal with you. Any normal person would understand without even thinking about it that in order for a warmer substance to heat a cooler substance all it takes is a connection. An ice cube flying through the air touches how many molecules would you suppose?

Argue with a pig and all you do is get muddy.[/quote]

Wake,
Once again you are showing your ignorance. The Brownian Theory of Motion explains how momentum is transferred from atmospheric gases to an ice cube.
I could explain it to you but you would say it doesn't matter because it would help to support my position.

@All,
You can do a search if you want to. The reason the suspended particle vibrates is because kinetic energy is being transferred from molecules that are striking it. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/brownian--motion
Edited on 20-08-2017 01:13
20-08-2017 02:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


This is not Obama's America anymore - reality has set in. Learn or be left behind.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/


Wake,
You are a bully in my opinion. What a bully would say >> you are never going to learn anything about science if you do not have the ability to criticize yourself. <<

You haven't shown where I am wrong.

@Everyone who is not into the night, wake or Tim,
The video states that an atmospheric gas hitting a cube transfers kinetic energy causing the cube to warm. With an ice cube the atmospheric gas is striking the cube on the outside not the inside.
And this means that the reason our atmosphere is warm is because collisions are taking place.
quote
Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature.



https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
end quote
Wake, can you explain how you and your friends didn't know that ?


Time to bully you again - what you are talking about is conduction. This is the basic form in which heat energy is moved from molecule to molecule in the troposphere. CO2 is no different than any other gas in this respect.

Convection moves the heated molecules from the lower troposphere to the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Again - CO2 is no different in this respect than any other gas.

We have only repeated this here a million times and you still don't seem to have grasped what "conduction and convection" are or how they truly operate.

Let me repeat - Tim is correct with his talking about throwing an ice cube being another example of angular momentum in which no heat is transferred is correct. (Though there is frictional heating of the air as it slows the ice cube at least until it strikes the floor.)

Newtonian physics is not difficult to understand but you continue to pop up with these ideas that you appear to have read for the first time and believe that somehow they are magik.

Now Einsteinian extensions re: relativity and quantum mechanics are complex and if you cannot deal with Newtonian physics you're not going to get past first base in today's physics.

So rather than learn you prefer to call names and ignore. What does that show about your personality?[/quote]


You can sit alone with your pals on this group and evince ignorance on such a level that no rational person can deal with you. Any normal person would understand without even thinking about it that in order for a warmer substance to heat a cooler substance all it takes is a connection. An ice cube flying through the air touches how many molecules would you suppose?

Argue with a pig and all you do is get muddy.[/quote]

Wake,
Once again you are showing your ignorance. The Brownian Theory of Motion explains how momentum is transferred from atmospheric gases to an ice cube.
I could explain it to you but you would say it doesn't matter because it would help to support my position.

@All,
You can do a search if you want to. The reason the suspended particle vibrates is because kinetic energy is being transferred from molecules that are striking it. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/brownian--motion[/quote]

You "could explain it to" me. Except you don't even know you changed the original comment of Tim's "An ice cube at zero degrees with a velocity of 100m/s Northwards has lots of momentum but still the same temperature.

The velocity of gas moloecules within the gas, using the gas as the point of referance to measure this velocity, is what determines it's temperature. Nothing to doo with momentum.

I hate to bully like this since you might run away from home or commit suicide but Brownian Motion has not one damn thing to do with our discussion.

Why don't you tell us all about how it's all tied in with a ket now.


You have no clue."

Now he is slightly off with his comparison but compared to you he is Einstein reborn.
20-08-2017 03:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
You are a waste of my time. I like the way you said I might go commit suicide. Is that a suggestion?
I think it is. I`m making you look bad, aren't I?
And that's all you have now, how much can you rachet up your bullying?
That is the new America. Too lazy to work for something.
20-08-2017 03:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
I`ll probably need to quit posting in here. When Wake tells me he's not going to stop harassing me until I either kill myself or accept what he says, that's scary
. His mentioning of suicide could be considered a Freudian Slip and is how much he plans on dominating me over his wants. He`s set things up for that.
Edited on 20-08-2017 03:53
20-08-2017 04:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
@All,
I`ll probably need to quit posting in here. When Wake tells me he's not going to stop harassing me until I either kill myself or accept what he says, that's scary
. His mentioning of suicide could be considered a Freudian Slip and is how much he plans on dominating me over his wants. He`s set things up for that.


'Bye. Have fun living in paranoid fear.


The Parrot Killer
20-08-2017 04:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
I`ll probably need to quit posting in here. When Wake tells me he's not going to stop harassing me until I either kill myself or accept what he says, that's scary
. His mentioning of suicide could be considered a Freudian Slip and is how much he plans on dominating me over his wants. He`s set things up for that.


'Bye. Have fun living in paranoid fear.


Actually Wake night be missing the intercourse that he's enjoyed so much with you. It's like you complete him and with me he just can't seem to "get off". I think it's leaving him frustrated if you know what I mean ;-)
Edited on 20-08-2017 05:02
20-08-2017 06:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
You are a waste of my time. I like the way you said I might go commit suicide. Is that a suggestion?
I think it is. I`m making you look bad, aren't I?
And that's all you have now, how much can you rachet up your bullying?
That is the new America. Too lazy to work for something.


Here is another example of your ignorance. Commercials on TV every single day tell us that cyber-bullying can lead to your children running away from home or committing suicide. I'm sure you don't watch TV but I like to find out what the weather is going to be before I go for a bike ride.

Or is this what you honestly think that you will do to get away from being bullied which is your definition of being told the truth?
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate Angular Momentum:

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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact