From ice core analysis to temperature curves

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.

Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

While true, the discussion is about light.

Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

James___ wrote:
That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

James___ wrote:
This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

James___ wrote:
The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:
Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

No, he was not. He was referring to particle/wave duality.

James___ wrote:That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

Nope. Electromagnetic energy does not become matter (electrons are matter). The photoelectric effect is the effect of electromagnetic energy causing matter to emit its electrons. The electromagnetic energy does not itself transmute into electrons.

James___ wrote: This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

While we're on the subject, electrons also behave as waves. In fact, an electron is just a probability curve in a quantum mechanics equation.

James___ wrote: The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

The electrons remain electrons. It's the electrical energy that is converted to electromagnetic energy.

James___ wrote:Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

If they are physically active electrons then they certainly won't be fat and are bound to be light. Their problem is that they are always so negative and meet with resistance from all matter they encounter, but they always seem to prevail with their current potential (It's their special power).

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.
And Spongy, if such is true, Langley made images of the Sun. Think about it.

p.s., if you need a clue, his drawings are still used in school today. He was known for elevating the University of Pittsburgh about 1900 before becoming the head of the Smithsonian Institution. If people aren't familiar with this, it's not my position to educate them.

p.s.s., Spongy, I am comparing your pictures to the drawings Langley made over 100 years ago. Suck it up. I have said that I think you proved something very important about the Earth's atmosphere. I've now given you proper context.

I thought of another visual experiment to explain the effect.

Check out these 3 pictures of the same lighter.



They were all captured using my camera's manual setting, at the same zoom, focus, white balance, ISO, and shutter speed.

The picture on the left has the biggest corona. It was behind 2 panes of glass shower screen.

The picture in the middle has the 2nd biggest corona. It was behind 1 pane of glass shower screen

The picture on the right has the smallest corona. It was behind no glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.
And Spongy, if such is true, Langley made images of the Sun. Think about it.

p.s., if you need a clue, his drawings are still used in school today. He was known for elevating the University of Pittsburgh about 1900 before becoming the head of the Smithsonian Institution. If people aren't familiar with this, it's not my position to educate them.

p.s.s., Spongy, I am comparing your pictures to the drawings Langley made over 100 years ago. Suck it up. I have said that I think you proved something very important about the Earth's atmosphere. I've now given you proper context.

I thought of another visual experiment to explain the effect.

Check out these 3 pictures of the same lighter.



They were all captured using my camera's manual setting, at the same zoom, focus, white balance, ISO, and shutter speed.

The picture on the left has the biggest corona. It was behind 2 panes of glass shower screen.

The picture in the middle has the 2nd biggest corona. It was behind 1 pane of glass shower screen

The picture on the right has the smallest corona. It was behind no glass.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.
And Spongy, if such is true, Langley made images of the Sun. Think about it.

p.s., if you need a clue, his drawings are still used in school today. He was known for elevating the University of Pittsburgh about 1900 before becoming the head of the Smithsonian Institution. If people aren't familiar with this, it's not my position to educate them.

p.s.s., Spongy, I am comparing your pictures to the drawings Langley made over 100 years ago. Suck it up. I have said that I think you proved something very important about the Earth's atmosphere. I've now given you proper context.

I thought of another visual experiment to explain the effect.

Check out these 3 pictures of the same lighter.



They were all captured using my camera's manual setting, at the same zoom, focus, white balance, ISO, and shutter speed.

The picture on the left has the biggest corona. It was behind 2 panes of glass shower screen.

The picture in the middle has the 2nd biggest corona. It was behind 1 pane of glass shower screen

The picture on the right has the smallest corona. It was behind no glass.

And yet you are showing diffusion. I will help you to understand. Shower screens are diffusion. Our atmosphere allows for diffusion. I've mentioned this to you relative to your observations in solar radiation.
And once again you are showing that you know something. If what I am working on works out, you'll be in the highlight reel. I simply love what you're doing. It's awesome.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Thanks James! I get confused between reflection, refraction, and diffusion.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Thanks James! I get confused between reflection, refraction, and diffusion.

Your welcome. It's basically what a prism does but your light source and what it is passing through lacks the amplitude and the angled faces. That's why it's a "softer" light. That's one reason why I consider the Earth's atmosphere a low density prism or light filter.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Thanks James! I get confused between reflection, refraction, and diffusion.

Your welcome. It's basically what a prism does but your light source and what it is passing through lacks the amplitude and the angled faces. That's why it's a "softer" light. That's one reason why I consider the Earth's atmosphere a low density prism or light filter.

I think the soft light of the flame through the glass shower screens in a very dark room conveys what the corona of the sun looks like when staring at it from the ground. When you try to pick up the corona with a camera, it just looks like the sun is bigger, because the camera picks up the sun and corona as the same.

Anyhow, I thought of another example, this time which shows reflection.

In this example I think the camera is picking up what the eye can't. The sun's reflection in the glass ceiling. Or prism if that works for the name of it.

Check out this double sun image I snapped in 2017.



What I remember doing to create that visual effect, was I pointed the camera straight at the sun, and then tilted it downward.

I think the effect can be described with this simple doodle.



The 2 doodles are supposed to depict the sun on the left, the prism in the middle, and the camera lens on the right.

When the camera is tilted down, as in the below doodle, it sees the sun, and it's reflection in the prism.

James___ wrote:

Are you familiar with basic trig and vertices? You're showing an isosceles triangle with your camera's lens as the vertex. You didn't say if you used 35mm film or digital camera.
What could change the image of the sun is your camera's lens. It's focused where you are aiming it. And that would be a vertex where sunlight and the focus of your camera intersect. And that would explain why the Sun itself is softer, it's basically a peripheral view.
It is interesting that you can pick up sunlight showing through glass like that. That gets into optics and refraction. Basically your picture is of solar radiation inside the glass itself. That's pretty cool if you ask me.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Are you familiar with basic trig and vertices? You're showing an isosceles triangle with your camera's lens as the vertex. You didn't say if you used 35mm film or digital camera.
What could change the image of the sun is your camera's lens. It's focused where you are aiming it. And that would be a vertex where sunlight and the focus of your camera intersect. And that would explain why the Sun itself is softer, it's basically a peripheral view.
It is interesting that you can pick up sunlight showing through glass like that. That gets into optics and refraction. Basically your picture is of solar radiation inside the glass itself. That's pretty cool if you ask me.

Well I had to look up what vertex means

yes I see what you're saying about the camera lens being the vertex point.

That pic was taken with my old LG cell phone camera. I think digital 35 mm.

What I noticed was the Sun itself shows completely white. But the reflection or refraction was more yellow around the edges. The Sun itself was less distorted too.

I'm not sure why the camera could pick up the reflection or refraction in the glass but my eyes cannot...

I found a similar effect can be shown with a crescent moon.



I can only see the crescent part of the moon with my naked eyes. But snap a photo under the right lighting conditions, and I can see the full moon.

This reminds me of the phrase one says when they see something unforgettable, That image is now burned onto the back of my eyelids...

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Are you familiar with basic trig and vertices? You're showing an isosceles triangle with your camera's lens as the vertex. You didn't say if you used 35mm film or digital camera.
What could change the image of the sun is your camera's lens. It's focused where you are aiming it. And that would be a vertex where sunlight and the focus of your camera intersect. And that would explain why the Sun itself is softer, it's basically a peripheral view.
It is interesting that you can pick up sunlight showing through glass like that. That gets into optics and refraction. Basically your picture is of solar radiation inside the glass itself. That's pretty cool if you ask me.

Well I had to look up what vertex means

yes I see what you're saying about the camera lens being the vertex point.

That pic was taken with my old LG cell phone camera. I think digital 35 mm.

What I noticed was the Sun itself shows completely white. But the reflection or refraction was more yellow around the edges. The Sun itself was less distorted too.

I'm not sure why the camera could pick up the reflection or refraction in the glass but my eyes cannot...

I found a similar effect can be shown with a crescent moon.



I can only see the crescent part of the moon with my naked eyes. But snap a photo under the right lighting conditions, and I can see the full moon.

This reminds me of the phrase one says when they see something unforgettable, That image is now burned onto the back of my eyelids...

With the solar radiation in the glass, why it's warmer in a greenhouse. Light is being slowed. This increases its intrinsic brightness. I think why your camera picked it up so well is because of the lens on your camera. Think of an object in water or in this case behind it.
In this example, the glass and the water acted like a lens and reversed the image. If you notice, many videos that people upload will have words backwards. This would explain why.

My bad, that's a distortion in the space/time continuum.

p.s., you must have a good camera. I've had ones that could pick up stars at night. Is that Mars that's further out than the Moon? Or is it the ISS? Am thinking that maybe your camera picked up the shade while your brain will fill in gaps.
Just watch a video on YouTube (and keep stopping it) and it will be blurry. It's your brain that creates what you see. Just watch the false start. They've zoomed in and it shows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHJ8IoGHzl8

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Are you familiar with basic trig and vertices? You're showing an isosceles triangle with your camera's lens as the vertex. You didn't say if you used 35mm film or digital camera.
What could change the image of the sun is your camera's lens. It's focused where you are aiming it. And that would be a vertex where sunlight and the focus of your camera intersect. And that would explain why the Sun itself is softer, it's basically a peripheral view.
It is interesting that you can pick up sunlight showing through glass like that. That gets into optics and refraction. Basically your picture is of solar radiation inside the glass itself. That's pretty cool if you ask me.

Well I had to look up what vertex means

yes I see what you're saying about the camera lens being the vertex point.

That pic was taken with my old LG cell phone camera. I think digital 35 mm.

What I noticed was the Sun itself shows completely white. But the reflection or refraction was more yellow around the edges. The Sun itself was less distorted too.

I'm not sure why the camera could pick up the reflection or refraction in the glass but my eyes cannot...

I found a similar effect can be shown with a crescent moon.



I can only see the crescent part of the moon with my naked eyes. But snap a photo under the right lighting conditions, and I can see the full moon.

This reminds me of the phrase one says when they see something unforgettable, That image is now burned onto the back of my eyelids...

With the solar radiation in the glass, why it's warmer in a greenhouse. Light is being slowed. This increases its intrinsic brightness. I think why your camera picked it up so well is because of the lens on your camera. Think of an object in water or in this case behind it.
In this example, the glass and the water acted like a lens and reversed the image. If you notice, many videos that people upload will have words backwards. This would explain why.

My bad, that's a distortion in the space/time continuum.

p.s., you must have a good camera. I've had ones that could pick up stars at night. Is that Mars that's further out than the Moon? Or is it the ISS? Am thinking that maybe your camera picked up the shade while your brain will fill in gaps.
Just watch a video on YouTube (and keep stopping it) and it will be blurry. It's your brain that creates what you see. Just watch the false start. They've zoomed in and it shows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHJ8IoGHzl8

Lol. No that looks like Mercury. Here is a wider view of that night showing the Crescent Moon, Mercury and Venus.



https://whenthecurveslineup.com/2020/05/25/2020-may-24-brilliant-evening-star-venus-mercury-and-moon/

Italy's rockin' the 100M.

Said Lamont Marcell Jacobs... "I've won an Olympic gold after Usain Bolt, it's unbelievable. Tonight, staring at the ceiling perhaps I will realise."

James___ wrote:

Okay Copernicus, I say it's Usain Bolt tearing up the sky.

Just read about Italy. The Olympic coverage this year was so poor. Just didn't have much of an idea when the track and field events would be on.
With what Italy has done, people might think they have a chance now.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Okay Copernicus, I say it's Usain Bolt tearing up the sky.

Just read about Italy. The Olympic coverage this year was so poor. Just didn't have much of an idea when the track and field events would be on.
With what Italy has done, people might think they have a chance now.

I think it's Natalie Imbruglia tearing up the sky.

https://youtu.be/VV1XWJN3nJo

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Okay Copernicus, I say it's Usain Bolt tearing up the sky.

Just read about Italy. The Olympic coverage this year was so poor. Just didn't have much of an idea when the track and field events would be on.
With what Italy has done, people might think they have a chance now.

I think it's Natalie Imbruglia tearing up the sky.

https://youtu.be/VV1XWJN3nJo

James___ wrote:
p.s., the song reminded me of a picture posted online after 9/11. I don't know if it was photoshopped or not but someone claimed that it was painted before hand and it showed Jesus looking through a torn/parted sky looking down at the World Trade Center before it was bombed.
What I wondered was 2 different things. Why wasn't it better known and did Jesus support capitalism?
At the moment religion is killing Afghani. Over 5 million Palestinians are in concentration camps.
Those 2 things are why there is a problem. East meets West. I apologize but I've always considered that song as more than a gal that had a broken relationship. I think it goes deeper than that and you know it too. It's spiritual in a way. It is possible it's about faith.
There are cults out there that prey on people. Now I wonder who wrote the song.
If you're wondering, Heart Break Hotel was written about a guy who committed suicide. A writer read about it and changed the ending.
The most famous song though is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM
The heir to the Guinness fortune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Browne. Where songs come from.

p.s., with the planets in our solar system, I got banned from a physics forum for asking a question. Apparently no scientist has observed what the Sun, Venus, Earth and Mars has in common when it has to do with the atmosphere of the 3 planets. It is something that will change both astrophysics and atmospheric chemistry. Bessler's wheel shows me how resistant people are to change.

James___ wrote:
And we're back to Neil LeVang. Just watch his face and notice his smile. And no Christian knows that feeling. It is what they want and yet Neil is doing something he loves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

James___ wrote:
That forum I think was mostly to help students in school and was told that I can't even mention it unless it is published in a peer review journal.

James___ wrote:
Gravity has a velocity of 9.81 m/s.

James___ wrote:
Yet no associated mass.

James___ wrote:
If I am right about Bessler, he allowed resistance to change the moment of inertia. And if you take a line and place either a 10 lb. weight on it or a 100 lb. weight, some lines will stretch while others won't.
And now you know why I get into math. And the discs that increase the distance between points a and b are not a part of the wheel. Yet I think they will allow the moment of inertia of the wheel to change.

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy from nothing.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy from nothing.

Basically gravity is metaphysical.

James___ wrote:
It pertains to; the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowng, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

James___ wrote:
And as you say ITN, it "is" but no one is sure what it "is".

James___ wrote:
Why it pertains to metaphysics or is considered as metaphysical. And yet because it can be quantified, it "is" a part of science.

James___ wrote:
And we're back to Neil LeVang. Just watch his face and notice his smile. And no Christian knows that feeling. It is what they want and yet Neil is doing something he loves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
And we're back to Neil LeVang. Just watch his face and notice his smile. And no Christian knows that feeling. It is what they want and yet Neil is doing something he loves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

Spend your life in misery and ruin...

https://youtube.com/shorts/hsYundO0ojg?feature=share

49 second jam session with Spongy Iris.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy from nothing.

Basically gravity is metaphysical.

No, gravity is a force.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
And we're back to Neil LeVang. Just watch his face and notice his smile. And no Christian knows that feeling. It is what they want and yet Neil is doing something he loves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

Spend your life in misery and ruin...

https://youtube.com/shorts/hsYundO0ojg?feature=share

49 second jam session with Spongy Iris.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
And we're back to Neil LeVang. Just watch his face and notice his smile. And no Christian knows that feeling. It is what they want and yet Neil is doing something he loves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

Spend your life in misery and ruin...

https://youtube.com/shorts/hsYundO0ojg?feature=share

49 second jam session with Spongy Iris.

With my medical situation, eating food or being active can cause me a lot of trauma. Why I want to have surgery. The guy who wrote the book about Bessler is a jerk. He and his group orffyreus.org set up a forum to extort people's work from them. The sad part is that his granddaughter can't walk because of a medical condition that has no cause.
With my medical problems, pretty much the same thing. Yet I have imaging which shows obvious problems but they are never mentioned in the radiological report. Of course if my build works, then I can have surgery without saying why and ask for a settlement.
John Collins and his friends told em they don't want me to help his granddaughter. The basic reason is that I won't let them extort me. I posted a link on his granddaughter's TikTok so she can see what I am going through with both imaging and reports shown.
She'll probably need to network with others who have her same condition and ask why doctors are only treating the symptoms. She needs to get mad. Kind of why sometimes I'm an ășşhole. And with her and people like her, they need to make noise so the media will ask why doctors don't try something.
I let her know that her condition is like compartment syndrome without the swelling. And they treat compartment syndrome because of the swelling. With her condition, swelling can occur.

Spongy Iris wrote:

From John Collins blog

"Someone recently mentioned the possibility that there might be a living descendent of Bessler's who might have inherited some information about the wheel. I'm not convinced that there is a chance that this might be possible, but I don't like to rule it out. So what follows is the only information I have to date on his parents, brother, wives and children. It may be that someone might be more familiar with ancestry research than I, and find the limited information below of use in their research."

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2018/09/johann-besslers-family-and-his.html?m=1

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy from nothing.

Basically gravity is metaphysical.

No, gravity is a force.

f = ma describes force.

James___ wrote:
Since gravity is considered to have no mass how can it have force?

James___ wrote:
And now we're talking metaphysics.

James___ wrote:
And with gravity, it's force has been well defined.
And I'll probably help to better define it.

James___ wrote:
Your philosophy does not allow for change.

James___ wrote:
By saying"is", you're saying you can't understand. It handicaps you.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Your philosophy does not allow for change.

This is not philosophy.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Your philosophy does not allow for change.

This is not philosophy.

All you ever discuss is philosophy. You're like VIKI on I, Robot. Her logic was undeniable. And since your logic is undeniable, that is your personal philosophy.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Your philosophy does not allow for change.

This is not philosophy.

All you ever discuss is philosophy. You're like VIKI on I, Robot. Her logic was undeniable. And since your logic is undeniable, that is your personal philosophy.

Obviously you have no idea what philosophy even is.

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
With Venus, Earth and Mars all having atmospheric pressures that are relative to one another, I just worked a simple formula that is close. I did not use exact numbers but "round" numbers. An example is that Venus is 67.2 million miles from the Sun while the Earth is 95.4 million miles from it.
Why does this matter? It would suggest that gravity and not the weight of a column of air is responsible for atmospheric air pressure. Just read the explanation;
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/solids-liquids-and-gases/atmospheric-pressure/

I think Gravity is responsible for weight.