Does Neo Thermodynamics Prove that Climate Change is Theoretically Impossible?

Im a BM wrote: Science is just a word game.

Im a BM wrote: To be a master of words, you must control their definition.

Im a BM wrote: No scientific textbooks or papers allowed.

Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as (whatever religious term was used)"

Im a BM wrote: Just because all the published references (dictionaries, textbooks, etc.) and all the so called scientists say otherwise?

Im a BM wrote: And the WORD MASTER has NEVER LOST A DEBATE ...

Im a BM wrote: At least not in this cozy little rabbit hole.

Im a BM wrote: HELIUM FUN FACTS
At least 1600 metric tons of He leave the atmosphere each year to outer space.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

Stop whining.

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

The atmosphere is not physics. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:(who cares?)

The atmosphere is not physics. You don't get a Kiddie Pool to push your religion.

Im a BM wrote: When I began posting a little more than two years ago, I started about ten threads related to environmental chemistry (carbon sequestration, ocean acidification, nitrous oxide emission, etc.).

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night constantly trolled them, with posts outnumbering mine more than three to one on my environmental chemistry threads.

Im a BM wrote: ALWAYS invoking "thermodynamics"!

"You are ignoring thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics" "You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics" "Thermodynamics blah blah blah" "Blah blah blah thermodynamics"

Im a BM wrote: All in the context of [biogeorioneotivocheevoclimateministry].

Im a BM wrote: NOW Into the Night has a chance to display mastery of thermodynamics on a thread that is NOT about chemistry.

A thread that specifically cited Into the Night's claims about "thermodynamics", including the assertion that helium cannot escape the atmosphere.

And defend the cryptic answer that "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity" as the explanation for why it should not be theoretically possible for helium to leave the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is helium in the atmosphere." - Into the Night

In a rare deviation, ITN has posted a sentence of accurate science.

Yes, there is helium in the atmosphere.

About 5 ppm. He = 0.00005% of gas in atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium has been generated by nuclear reactions in the Earth's crust for about 4600 million years.

Nuclear fission does not create helium.

Im a BM wrote:
It is too inert to bond to anything and end up in land or water.

Helium exists in both land and water.

Im a BM wrote:
It eithers stays in the atmosphere or floats off to outer space.

No gas can 'float away' into space. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Im a BM wrote:
If it weren't floating away, helium would be present at double digit percentage concentration in the atmosphere today. Not just 5 ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.

keepit wrote:
ibd and itn,
Your interpretations of most things is lame and it's not getting any better.

keepit wrote:ibd and itn, Your interpretations of most things is lame and it's not getting any better.

keepit wrote:
ibd and itn,
Your interpretations of most things is lame and it's not getting any better.

Im a BM wrote: Psychologists call it "projection".

Im a BM wrote: Like telling the published PhD scientist that he is "scientifically illiterate",

Im a BM wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that "The atmosphere is not physics."?

Im a BM wrote:
Is it true that if you post the same sentence a thousand times it magically becomes the irrefutable truth?

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as biogeochemistry."

Im a BM wrote:
You're getting close to that magic threshold - the 1000-post repetition fallacy miracle transformation tipping point.

Im a BM wrote:
And it will magically become the irrefutable truth.

Biogeochemistry will simply cease to exist.

Im a BM wrote:
But you're still going to have to prove that the atmosphere is not physics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is helium in the atmosphere." - Into the Night

In a rare deviation, ITN has posted a sentence of accurate science.

Yes, there is helium in the atmosphere.

About 5 ppm. He = 0.00005% of gas in atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium has been generated by nuclear reactions in the Earth's crust for about 4600 million years.

Nuclear fission does not create helium.

Im a BM wrote:
It is too inert to bond to anything and end up in land or water.

Helium exists in both land and water.

Im a BM wrote:
It eithers stays in the atmosphere or floats off to outer space.

No gas can 'float away' into space. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Im a BM wrote:
If it weren't floating away, helium would be present at double digit percentage concentration in the atmosphere today. Not just 5 ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of helium.

Go and learn some science, you moron.

You don't even know what science is.

There is no such thing as that in science.

You ignore science, you dumbass liar.

You deny science, and you are not God.

Science is not helium, you moron.

Energy is not nothing, dumbass.

It is not possible to measure anything.

It is not possible to know about the past.

There is no credible source for the definition of terms.

Unless you happen to be omniscient and scientifically infallible.

And hold that truth to be self evident.

Evidence? EVIDENCE! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' EVIDENCE!

keepit wrote:
ibd and itn,
Your interpretations of most things is lame and it's not getting any better.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Yeah, a theory of science stands on its own but if noone reads it and studies it, what is it?
Lame is lame, that doesn't need much interpretation but science does.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd and itn,
Your interpretations of most things is lame and it's not getting any better.

Psychologists call it "projection". Freud coined the term.

Im a BM wrote:
Like telling the published PhD scientist that he is "scientifically illiterate", when the troll never passed a single college level course in science.

Im a BM wrote:
But the most revealing projections, Freudian slips if you will, are about religion and the cult like nature of disbelief in climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
"You came here to preach your WACKY religion."

"Just a wacky religion."

Indeed, it is a wacky religion.

The shared disbelief in science, the obedience to the cult leader's dogma about unambiguous definitions as sacrosanct pillars of "science", the complete revision of the laws of thermodynamics into the new Commandments.. And the "us versus them" mentality of grievance and oppression.

"Just a wacky religion."

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Yeah, a theory of science stands on its own but if noone reads it and studies it, what is it?
Lame is lame, that doesn't need much interpretation but science does.

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

Im a BM wrote:
Google search keywords: Does helium leave the atmosphere?

Im a BM wrote:
I didn't go more than 30 down, but I did not see ANY that suggested that helium cannot leave the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Certainly no reference to a scientific explanation of how it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics if all the data/evidence were TRUE about helium leaving the atmosphere (which it is)

[b]Im a BM wrote:
Google may not be God, but why would they bother to participate in a conspiracy to lie about this issue?

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who does this search will find hundreds of references, many of them peer-reviewed scientific papers, to verify the assertions of the summary paragraph.

Im a BM wrote:
Why would they all conspire to promote a lie?

keepit wrote:
Gas,
i think escape velocity is reduced if you're escaping from distant point from the mass in question.
Also, i think sea lover is talking about radioactivity rather than helium escape at this particular point.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

If the "debate" actually referred to specific details beyond "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", I would recommend a search in Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks on the subject.

Im a BM wrote:
But a resource that is more user friendly to the lay person is just Google.

Im a BM wrote:
Any radium present in the Earth's crust 4600 million years has LONG since decayed and emitted alpha particles which immediately became helium.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, if ITN knows enough about radioactive decay to invoke NEW formation of radium in the time since the Earth formed...

Im a BM wrote:
That is even MORE helium unaccounted for in the atmosphere.

keepit wrote:
itn,
None is saying that you can create energy out of nothing.

keepit wrote:
It's just your imagination.

keepit wrote:
And noone is ignoring any physical laws.

keepit wrote:
How do you figure that they are specifically.

You cannot create energy out of nothing, Keepit. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You are also ignoring Kepler's laws and Newton's gravitation law.

Kepler showed that the planets move in elliptical orbits rather than in circles as Copernicus suggested. In his book describing the insight, he said it was confirmed by independent calculations of the planets' positions. In fact, Dr. Donahue says, Kepler derived the data by calculations based on the theory itself.

Done in 1609, Kepler's fakery is one of the earliest known examples of the use of false data by a giant of modern science.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary.

keepit wrote:
itn,
None is saying radium is helium and noone is saying that science is a paper or a book. It's just your imagination. Stick more closely to reality.

Xadoman wrote:

You cannot create energy out of nothing, Keepit. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You are also ignoring Kepler's laws and Newton's gravitation law.

Hi ITN. I recently read that Keppler fudged data back in his day to prove his theories.

Xadoman wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html
Some quotes:

Kepler showed that the planets move in elliptical orbits rather than in circles as Copernicus suggested. In his book describing the insight, he said it was confirmed by independent calculations of the planets' positions. In fact, Dr. Donahue says, Kepler derived the data by calculations based on the theory itself.

Xadoman wrote:

Done in 1609, Kepler's fakery is one of the earliest known examples of the use of false data by a giant of modern science.

Xadoman wrote:

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion.

A calculation is not data.

Xadoman wrote:
Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

It did. Mars has an elliptical orbit, more so than any other planet.

Xadoman wrote:
''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary.

Xadoman wrote:
Keppler fudged his data. He used his own formulas to cook data to "prove" his own formulas.

Xadoman wrote:
Circular proof fallacy.

Xadoman wrote:
As you can see, even big names 400 years ago faked data, pulled numbers from thin air and did anything to prove their point.

Xadoman wrote:
Nowadays we can be assured that things are even more corrupted.

Dr. Donahue's detective work started as he read the book in Latin and redid Kepler's calculations. ''You can't get the language right if you don't understand what he's describing,'' Dr. Donahue said. But soon he found ''something strange going on.''

In chapter 53 of ''The New Astronomy,'' Kepler outlined a method he said he used to calculate the distances of the Earth and Mars from the Sun. The complex method was based on triangulation, which takes the distance between two points and then calculates the distance to a third by analyzing the angles in the triangle formed by the three points. The resulting distances, calculated for a variety of different dates, traced the geometry of planetary motions and gave hints that the orbits were far from circular.

Kepler cited these calculations as independent proof of the correctness of his claim for elliptical orbits. His findings were displayed in a large chart.

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

Xadoman wrote:
Keppler indeed faked, lied and fudged the data.

Xadoman wrote:
For those who do not know Keppler was hired by Tycho Brahe to help him with math to explain Mars s peculiar behavior.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho was one of the best and accurate astronomer of its own age.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho Brahe died and Keppler got all of his data, measurement etc.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho did not agree with heliocentrism because astronomical observational data does not support it.

Xadoman wrote:
Keppler took all of his works and then turned all of it upside down and started to push his theory. He fudged data, lied , faked and made everything possible to push his agenda:

Xadoman wrote:
Here is a quote from article:

[quote]Dr. Donahue's detective work started as he read the book in Latin and redid Kepler's calculations. ''You can't get the language right if you don't understand what he's describing,'' Dr. Donahue said. But soon he found ''something strange going on.''

Xadoman wrote:
In chapter 53 of ''The New Astronomy,'' Kepler outlined a method he said he used to calculate the distances of the Earth and Mars from the Sun. The complex method was based on triangulation, which takes the distance between two points and then calculates the distance to a third by analyzing the angles in the triangle formed by the three points. The resulting distances, calculated for a variety of different dates, traced the geometry of planetary motions and gave hints that the orbits were far from circular.

Xadoman wrote:
Kepler cited these calculations as independent proof of the correctness of his claim for elliptical orbits. His findings were displayed in a large chart.

Xadoman wrote:
But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer.

[b]Xadoman wrote:
After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.[/b]

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

Xadoman wrote:
As you can see, Keppler was a fraud.

Xadoman wrote:
He pulled data from his own formulas,

Xadoman wrote:
laid it to some charts and then said that this all proved his formulas.

Xadoman wrote:
Circular theory fallacy.

Xadoman wrote:
Heliocentrism is on the brink of collapse.

Xadoman wrote:
Mainstream media could postpone the inevitable collapse for some time but the thruth will come out some day.

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Keppler indeed faked, lied and fudged the data.

Keppler didn't collect any data.

Xadoman wrote:
For those who do not know Keppler was hired by Tycho Brahe to help him with math to explain Mars s peculiar behavior.

Never happened.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho was one of the best and accurate astronomer of its own age.

He had good instruments of his own design and an island to use them.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho Brahe died and Keppler got all of his data, measurement etc.

With the restriction that the data was to be published.

Xadoman wrote:
Tycho did not agree with heliocentrism because astronomical observational data does not support it.

It does, but we have better measurements now. The Sun isn't stationary. Planets and the Sun orbit each other. The data that we have now still does not falsify Kepler's theories.

Xadoman wrote:
Keppler took all of his works and then turned all of it upside down and started to push his theory. He fudged data, lied , faked and made everything possible to push his agenda:

Blatant lie. Current data still does not falsify Kepler's theories.

Xadoman wrote:
Here is a quote from article:

[quote]Dr. Donahue's detective work started as he read the book in Latin and redid Kepler's calculations. ''You can't get the language right if you don't understand what he's describing,'' Dr. Donahue said. But soon he found ''something strange going on.''

I have not read this book, but I'll bet Donahue made some egregious errors in there.

Xadoman wrote:
In chapter 53 of ''The New Astronomy,'' Kepler outlined a method he said he used to calculate the distances of the Earth and Mars from the Sun. The complex method was based on triangulation, which takes the distance between two points and then calculates the distance to a third by analyzing the angles in the triangle formed by the three points. The resulting distances, calculated for a variety of different dates, traced the geometry of planetary motions and gave hints that the orbits were far from circular.

Triangulation works. It is still used today by cartographers for that reason.

Xadoman wrote:
Kepler cited these calculations as independent proof of the correctness of his claim for elliptical orbits. His findings were displayed in a large chart.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Xadoman wrote:
But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer.

Sorry, it takes more than someone like Donahue to falsify Kepler's theories.

[b]Xadoman wrote:
After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.[/b]

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Xadoman wrote:
As you can see, Keppler was a fraud.

Blatant lie. You cannot falsify a theory of science that way.

Xadoman wrote:
He pulled data from his own formulas,

Calculations are not data. Redefinition fallacy.

Xadoman wrote:
laid it to some charts and then said that this all proved his formulas.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Xadoman wrote:
Circular theory fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Xadoman wrote:
Heliocentrism is on the brink of collapse.

No, it isn't.

Xadoman wrote:
Mainstream media could postpone the inevitable collapse for some time but the thruth will come out some day.

Which is...according to you?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
Could you say more about earth's alpha particle emission.

If the "debate" actually referred to specific details beyond "Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity", I would recommend a search in Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks on the subject.

Attempting to deny science using Google isn't going to work, Robert.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a paper or a textbook or Google.

Im a BM wrote:
But a resource that is more user friendly to the lay person is just Google.

Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
Any radium present in the Earth's crust 4600 million years has LONG since decayed and emitted alpha particles which immediately became helium.

You don't know what conditions were like 4600 million years ago. Omniscience fallacy. Radium exists.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, if ITN knows enough about radioactive decay to invoke NEW formation of radium in the time since the Earth formed...

Radium exists in the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
That is even MORE helium unaccounted for in the atmosphere.

Radium is not helium. Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Your redefinition fallacy, Robert. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Radium is not helium.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Your redefinition fallacy, Robert. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Radium is not helium.

I'm pretty sure that I said that RADIUM EMITS ALPHA PARTICLES during its radioactive decay, and that ALPHA PARTICLES BECOME HELIUM.

And I'm pretty sure that ITN said alpha particles do NOT become helium.

And OF COURSE radium is not helium.

Pigs are not mosquitoes. True, but did someone really have to spell it out?

Nobody ever claimed that pigs ARE mosquitoes.

Perhaps you should identify the quote where someone allegedly said that radium IS helium, if you really don't believe you are just making another of your MANY false accusations.

Tell us again about how alpha particles do NOT become helium.

Tell us what the evidence is that helium does NOT escape the atmosphere.

You don't even need to invoke "thermodynamics", just tell us where we can find the evidence that supports your extraordinary contrarian claims.

You won't be able to cite any references to back it up.

But that never stopped you before.

SCIENCE IS NOT A REFERENCE!

Right. I forgot.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Radium is not helium." - Into the Night

Another straw man bites the dust.

Your redefinition fallacy, Robert. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.
Radium is not helium.

I'm pretty sure that I said that RADIUM EMITS ALPHA PARTICLES during its radioactive decay, and that ALPHA PARTICLES BECOME HELIUM.

And I'm pretty sure that ITN said alpha particles do NOT become helium.

And OF COURSE radium is not helium.

Pigs are not mosquitoes. True, but did someone really have to spell it out?

Nobody ever claimed that pigs ARE mosquitoes.

Perhaps you should identify the quote where someone allegedly said that radium IS helium, if you really don't believe you are just making another of your MANY false accusations.

Tell us again about how alpha particles do NOT become helium.

Tell us what the evidence is that helium does NOT escape the atmosphere.

You don't even need to invoke "thermodynamics", just tell us where we can find the evidence that supports your extraordinary contrarian claims.

You won't be able to cite any references to back it up.

But that never stopped you before.

SCIENCE IS NOT A REFERENCE!

Right. I forgot.

A theory of science IS a reference.
You just want to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Helium cannot escape the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
No energy is created or destroyed when helium leaves the atmosphere, as it does all the time.

Im a BM wrote:
No attempt was made to support the previous ITN assertion that alpha particles do NOT become helium. (very easy to fact check in any case)

Im a BM wrote:
Never admitted that chemists DO refer to hydrogen ion (H+) as "protons".

Im a BM wrote:
Never explained why it made any sense to point out that "radium is not helium".

Im a BM wrote:
Never attempted to explain in any scientifically valid manner how climate change would violate any law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
Never stops ****ing TROLLING trolling trolling trolling spamming spamming

Im a BM wrote:
MORE THAN 22,000 posts of parrot poop, telling everyone else that THEY do not know anything about science.