Remember me
▼ Content

From ice core analysis to temperature curves



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
18-08-2021 06:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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?

No.
James___ wrote:
That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

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

An electron is not energy. It is matter.
James___ wrote:
The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

Light bulbs do not convert electrons to light.
James___ wrote:
Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

Light is not an electron. Light is not matter.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-08-2021 06:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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).




How do you think a solar panel works? It converts electromagnetic radiation into electrons.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. It converts electromagnetic energy into electrical energy. It does not convert it into electrons.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-08-2021 06:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.

So?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-08-2021 06:08
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
18-08-2021 18:57
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


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



20-08-2021 01:11
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
22-08-2021 08:08
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


26-08-2021 02:43
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.



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.
26-08-2021 21:27
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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...



Edited on 26-08-2021 21:42
26-08-2021 22:26
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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
Attached image:


Edited on 26-08-2021 22:43
27-08-2021 00:09
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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."



Edited on 27-08-2021 00:20
27-08-2021 02:11
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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."



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.
27-08-2021 20:17
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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


27-08-2021 21:15
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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



Nah, it's Ghost Riders;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huA9tMpiU7Y

Kind of the feeling I get when I think about changing atmospheric chemistry.
28-08-2021 02:32
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
Edited on 28-08-2021 02:56
28-08-2021 04:24
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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


Your post goes more along with tearing up the bed sheets. She is hot. Ever watch NCIS Los Angeles? They have a gal that resembles her.
Attached image:

30-08-2021 21:53
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


I can't find the author of Torn. Apparently it was written for somebody...

"In 1993, the song was written for Danish singer Lis Sørensen and was later recorded by rock band, Ednaswap."

https://www.her.ie/music/natalie-imbruglia-torn-original-361918

So many of the lyrics in that song seem to me to be about the Bible.

"Thought I saw a man brought to life..." The Resurrection

"The perfect sky is torn..." The Flood

"Some holey light... crawled beneath my veins..." The Sun

Can you let me know what the atmosphere of the Sun, Venus, Earth, and Mars have in common?

Although I'm not sure, seems to me, the trick behind Besslers wheel is magnets.

Here's a video example of how to make a perpetually spinning wheel using magnets.

https://youtu.be/zqG-TL0WnjE


31-08-2021 17:37
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
There's also;
So I guess the fortune teller's right
Should have seen just what was there and not some holy light
and
I'm all out of faith, this is how I feel

With this song by Buffalo Springfield, it might've been about how the War in Vietnam was tearing the US apart. There was rioting in Los Angeles because of a curfew that was imposed because of the war.
And some of the lyrics;
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
The rioting in L.A. showed a divided America. I think it gave Buffalo Springfield an opportunity to ask people to look at what's happening. They did say what was happening "ain't exactly clear". The illegal curfew was very clear.


What the atmosphere's of those 3 planets have in common is that their atmospheric pressures are are relative to one another.
I got banned from a physics forum for asking if a scientist had made that observation before. 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.
I have been working on coming up with a formula that expresses those relationships. I just realized the other day that it might be an exponential decrease with limits. This shows how to factor more than 1 limit. And I have been becoming familiar with this but have other projects that I'm working on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTwBLwpoHss

There is conservation of energy - principle of physics according to which the energy of interacting bodies or particles in a closed system remains constant. The first kind of energy to be recognized was kinetic energy, or energy of motion.

Gravity has a velocity of 9.81 m/s. Yet no associated mass. Yet what allows for satellites to orbit the Earth? It is gravity.
Gravity influences matter. And the matter it influences is a "closed system". With what I've built, it uses resistance to perform work. And yet resistance reduces the efficiency of any device. I am modifying what I built so resistance will be increased which if all goes well, a lot more torque will be generated.
With how resistance would be factored, it's something like d/t * 1/2mr^2 where d= distance and t = time. If the distance in degrees rotated decreases relative to time then resistance increases because inertia will be increasing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9fPGXyvrVM
Basically it takes work to decrease the moment of inertia. This requires energy to be expended and not conserved. And the quicker the change in the moment of inertia happens, the more energy that is required to preform that work.
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.
Edited on 31-08-2021 18:12
31-08-2021 19:19
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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/
01-09-2021 00:51
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1nGPM9yHA
01-09-2021 02:58
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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
01-09-2021 05:55
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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



You guys simply don't get it. Christians want his attitude. Few have it. And it shows.
And then there is always; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYLU1aVP4Zg
No, I don't speak Japanese but this video has closed captioning in Engleske.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEULybZnLO8
And there's ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNwOsarPyR8
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jZ5_dsVT4
And for who she is performing with; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQuQIiLtRVI

I am a fan of Sina-Drums. She is a German drummer and collaborates with musicians around the world. One collaboration her work has led to is this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h3VAg1mQUQ
Kalonica might be 14 in this video with her on the drums.
With Sina, Andrei and with Andrei there is Kalonica.
A Sina-Drums collaboration;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF5A7BFnqw You can see Andrei on the guitar.
p.s., if you subscribe and share, you'll be helping her. She might be 16 or 17 now but she is talented, yes?
Edited on 01-09-2021 06:42
01-09-2021 07:30
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Because you guys are guys, you can subscribe to Kalonica's YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/c/KALONICANICX

p.s., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaEE_e_RO_Q
Edited on 01-09-2021 07:33
01-09-2021 07:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.

Science has no voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science. Science is not a magazine.
James___ wrote:
Gravity has a velocity of 9.81 m/s.

Gravity has no velocity.
James___ wrote:
Yet no associated mass.

Gravity is always between two masses.
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.

Perpetual motion machines are not possible.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-09-2021 07:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-09-2021 18:04
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
It pertains to; the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
And as you say ITN, it "is" but no one is sure what it "is". Why it pertains to metaphysics or is considered as metaphysical. And yet because it can be quantified, it "is" a part of science.
01-09-2021 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.
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.

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

Gravity is a force.
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.

Gravity is not science. It simply is.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-09-2021 01:59
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


02-09-2021 04:19
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.



That's pretty good. It's a messed up world that we live in.
02-09-2021 04:26
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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. Since gravity is considered to have no mass how can it have force? And now we're talking metaphysics. And with gravity, it's force has been well defined. And I'll probably help to better define it.
Your philosophy does not allow for change. By saying"is", you're saying you can't understand. It handicaps you.
02-09-2021 05:45
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
02-09-2021 06:20
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


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


02-09-2021 16:08
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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



This is what I have been working on for the last few years and is my current build. What's interesting is the title, The Triumph of the Perpetual Mobile of Orrfyreus. Are you familiar with the Lyre of Hermes? Hermes invented the lyre but it was Orpheus who played it. Orffyre is Bessler in simple code. And when he changed it to Orffyreus, he was referencing the lyre. He was once asked if he was Orpheus and he said no. Since he wrote this in his book, it's possible he knew that someone else would be making his wheel known so wrote things accordingly.
Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.
https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html

p.s., the 3 pendulums might actually be crosses. The simple reason is that pendulums do not need a cross bar. Bessler they said quoted the Bible 147 times in his book. If those 3 pendulums are crosses then he could be saying "have faith". He did want to start a Christian engineering school.
Attached image:


Edited on 02-09-2021 16:56
02-09-2021 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.

No, it doesn't. It relates mass, force, and acceleration.
James___ wrote:
Since gravity is considered to have no mass how can it have force?

Force requires no mass.
James___ wrote:
And now we're talking metaphysics.

No, you are talking gibberish.
James___ wrote:
And with gravity, it's force has been well defined.
And I'll probably help to better define it.

Gravity is an attractive force between two masses. There. It's defined.
James___ wrote:
Your philosophy does not allow for change.

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

More gibberish. Now you wish to ban the word 'is'????


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-09-2021 02:19
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.
03-09-2021 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-09-2021 02:35
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.



It's a belief or opinion that a person has. Have a nice day.
03-09-2021 02:47
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
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.


03-09-2021 03:49
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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.



And for what I'm pursuing, gravity is responsible for weight. This is why 9.81 m/s/s matters. Go to Denver, the Mile High city and weight decreases because gravity does.
With atmospheric air pressure, I would say that the vacuum of space negates gravity. Denver is only 1 mile high so it's atmospheric air pressure is 12.1. This could be said to be the effect that vacuum has on gravity. It's basically entropy vs gravity. I think atmospheric air pressure and gravity will say 2 different things. And in this forum, these guys can't do the math but I can. Trust but verify.

To give you an idea; https://www.google.com/search?q=30+hg+pressure&sxsrf=AOaemvKqGHlJ5j1pEg77Pf-gR4B-rlnNbw%3A1630629490374&ei=cm4xYba1FsKy5NoP2Yym2A8&oq=30hg&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYAzIFCAAQgAQyBwgAEIAEEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAoyBAgAEAo6BwgjELADECc6BwgAEEcQsAM6BwgAELADEEM6BAgjECc6BQgAEJECOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAToLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwE6CAguEIAEELEDOgQIABBDOgQILhBDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICAAQgAQQyQM6BQguEIAESgQIQRgAULwWWL8lYJZIaAFwAngAgAGRAYgB6gOSAQMxLjOYAQCgAQHIAQrAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

30 inches of mercury weighs 14.7 lbs. What specific science experiment established that atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi? I read about it but it wasn't about air.
As for the math, I will be busy this weekend and yet we have a hypothesis to test. Does the acceleration of gravity agree with atmospheric air pressure and its mass? To use logic, we now have a "Null Hypothesis".
And Spongy, if this allows for a variable, it will be something new in science. It would show that the emptiness of space is an attractive force.
I'm thinking Star Trek here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6R3MiAv9ac
Edited on 03-09-2021 03:57
03-09-2021 04:04
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
With the "Null Hypothesis", I'll start a thread on that next week. I have more pressing issues like wood working to deal with this weekend. Still, I will try to clearly show the difference between gravity and atmospheric air pressure. This would show that the vacuum of space influences our atmosphere.
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate From ice core analysis to temperature curves:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Co2 ice samples1102-06-2022 22:44
Low temperature breaks record set over 100 years ago, proving climate change is real2801-06-2022 06:03
Torque curves4321-05-2022 09:46
Arctic sea ice cover1909-04-2022 08:29
New Ice age by 203014004-04-2022 16:10
Articles
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact