Global warming is not anthropogenic

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

That's not all he is saying because if it were then he would be correct.

Are you aware that when a gas is compressed that its temperature initially increases? Are you aware that the gas then begins to cool while it remains compressed? Pete is under the impression that the gas simply never cools. He believes that the compression maintains the gas' higher temperature.

He is wrong.

His theory is that earth's gravity is maintaining the atmosphere's higher temperature, what he calls the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. Key in on the "Temperature Enhancement" part. You previously knew it under the name "Greenhouse Effect."

duncan61 wrote:does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

The earth is a body of matter. All matter has thermal energy. All matter is above absolute zero temperature. All matter radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.

No matter "retains" any energy. That is the wrong word. No matter can stop or otherwise reduce its loss of thermal energy which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of thermal energy loss is directly proportional to the matter's absolute temperature to the fourth power. There are a couple of constants in there as well but Temperature is the only variable that determines the rate of thermal energy loss. The cooler the matter is the slower the rate of loss. The higher the temperature of the matter, the greater the rate of loss ... to the fourth power. It's like when you drain your car's oil. When you pull the bolt the oil shoots out. As the oil level lowers the rate that the oil drains decreases. Eventually, the oil is a weak stream, then it's dripping, then you get one drop every few seconds ... etc...

Without making it too complicated, the amount of surface area affects the loss of thermal energy. More surface are means more loss. If you have a 45g metal ball bearing at 200C, it will lose thermal energy much more slowly than 45g of the same metal at the same temperature that has been hammered into a huge flat pancake. More surface area = more rapid loss.

This is why we refer to matter as a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can retain thermal energy any more than a spaghetti strainer can retain water. We therefore use the words "matter has associated thermal energy" but we don't use verbs that imply that it "contains" or "stores" or "traps" or holds" or "locks in" or anything of the sort.

.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:[crap post deleted]

Is there any way to get you off your lazy ass and to get you to just start a fresh clean post in which you just make a coherent point or two?

Still mucking about in the playground I see.

No, that would be you.

Pete Rogers replied 20/8/20:

Please specify - playground immaturity is typified by this kind of simple gainsaying. It implies that you place yourself in your own estimation as a sort of "King of the Castle" and simply categorise others; particularly those able to rebut your assertions: as the "dirty rascals" in that youthful game. Nothing more than ego seems present in your outbursts in the absence of genuinely supporting content. They are no more than that because of this absence. If you are capable of argumentum proper the possibility is obscured as you simply quarrel and from your consistency in this I suspect that you are not aware that there is any difference between the two forms - alas.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You have been given the full science from the start,

You have denied science from the start. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law.

Where are these denials please? Declaration of your opinion in the matter does not stand for establishment of its truth? Such claims are those of the untutored mind which doesn't yet have the ability to reason in this way. Several complete explanations were placed under your nose, showing that the argument in question conformed entirely to these 3 Laws you re-cite here as having been transgressed, yet you have the naivete to act as though you have not witnessed the rebuttals by failing to address them, or even refer to them. Your response means; further: that if this not be deliberate mischief on your part you must then be unable to comprehend them in that case. Accordingly there is no intelligence - or even information for that matter - for me to encounter anywhere within your reply so why waste your time and everyone else's with this kind of stuff?

Pete Rogers wrote:
but according to this you are unable to analyse the nuts and bolts of it in its own terms -

Please specify in what particulars, otherwise your comment carries no meaning again. You are meant to be capable of analysis: particularly the part that requires the setting down of proper explanations in logical form - this is never present in your outbursts - which is all they then are.

Pete Rogers wrote:
which is necessary for falsification in scientific matters as you ought to be aware -

Pete Rogers wrote:
only declare opposition in an increasingly juvenile manner.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You are supposed to employ adult reasoning - not adolescent mockery - if you wish to be taken seriously.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If this kind of comment is all you can come up with; and its scientific emptiness must be apparent even to you: it is not clear how you can ever hope to illuminate anything concerning the particulars laid before you in this thread.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Integrity and the impartial mind are what is needed

Pete Rogers wrote:
not the snide mentality of the advocate.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It seems that; notwithstanding advice to the contrary: you still believe that closed-mindedness is a blessing rather than the graveyard of the enquiring mind - RIP that of IBdeMann I suppose.

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

That's not all he is saying because if it were then he would be correct.

Are you aware that when a gas is compressed that its temperature initially increases? Are you aware that the gas then begins to cool while it remains compressed? Pete is under the impression that the gas simply never cools. He believes that the compression maintains the gas' higher temperature.

He is wrong.

His theory is that earth's gravity is maintaining the atmosphere's higher temperature, what he calls the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. Key in on the "Temperature Enhancement" part. You previously knew it under the name "Greenhouse Effect."

duncan61 wrote:does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

The earth is a body of matter. All matter has thermal energy. All matter is above absolute zero temperature. All matter radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.

No matter "retains" any energy. That is the wrong word. No matter can stop or otherwise reduce its loss of thermal energy which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of thermal energy loss is directly proportional to the matter's absolute temperature to the fourth power. There are a couple of constants in there as well but Temperature is the only variable that determines the rate of thermal energy loss. The cooler the matter is the slower the rate of loss. The higher the temperature of the matter, the greater the rate of loss ... to the fourth power. It's like when you drain your car's oil. When you pull the bolt the oil shoots out. As the oil level lowers the rate that the oil drains decreases. Eventually, the oil is a weak stream, then it's dripping, then you get one drop every few seconds ... etc...

Without making it too complicated, the amount of surface area affects the loss of thermal energy. More surface are means more loss. If you have a 45g metal ball bearing at 200C, it will lose thermal energy much more slowly than 45g of the same metal at the same temperature that has been hammered into a huge flat pancake. More surface area = more rapid loss.

This is why we refer to matter as a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can retain thermal energy any more than a spaghetti strainer can retain water. We therefore use the words "matter has associated thermal energy" but we don't use verbs that imply that it "contains" or "stores" or "traps" or holds" or "locks in" or anything of the sort.

.

Thanks IBDM I totally understand now.Keepit do not bring Covid up on threads I am part of.The travel restrictions will lift and I am going to fly all over the world measuring CO2 and I will find you.ITN can you answer the questions instead of just dening everything it gets very confusing for us dumbasses

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please specify - playground immaturity is typified by this kind of simple gainsaying. It implies that you place yourself in your own estimation as a sort of "King of the Castle" and simply categorise others; particularly those able to rebut your assertions: as the "dirty rascals" in that youthful game. Nothing more than ego seems present in your outbursts in the absence of genuinely supporting content. They are no more than that because of this absence. If you are capable of argumentum proper the possibility is obscured as you simply quarrel and from your consistency in this I suspect that you are not aware that there is any difference between the two forms - alas.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Declaration of your opinion in the matter does not stand for establishment of its truth? Such claims are those of the untutored mind which doesn't yet have the ability to reason in this way.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Several complete explanations were placed under your nose, showing that the argument in question conformed entirely to these 3 Laws you re-cite here as having been transgressed,

Pete Rogers wrote:
yet you have the naivete to act as though you have not witnessed the rebuttals by failing to address them, or even refer to them.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Your response means; further: that if this not be deliberate mischief on your part you must then be unable to comprehend them in that case. Accordingly there is no intelligence - or even information for that matter - for me to encounter anywhere within your reply so why waste your time and everyone else's with this kind of stuff?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please specify in what particulars, otherwise your comment carries no meaning again.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You are meant to be capable of analysis: particularly the part that requires the setting down of proper explanations in logical form - this is never present in your outbursts - which is all they then are.

Pete Rogers wrote:
All of this stuff is shot through with the same failure of explanation to arise,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so dealing with them singly is inefficient. There are countless times where you say that you have dealt with the science contained in the many rebuttals I have made concerning your points, but in point of fact you simply restate your position having overlooked the requirement to engage with the particulars - or even the existence - of those rebuttals.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It seems not only to have escaped IntoTheNight's notice, but yours too, that the examinable argument set down for formal formal falsification as the purpose of this thread proves that Humankind Plays no part in Global Warming unless the argument can be formally falsified.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Up to this point you haven't even tried as your approach ignores the particulars involved and that catches you out. Your motivations for what you do are unclear, but since you provide little more than playground mischief it would seem that you must simply work on some desire to be irritating. Not much of an aim that; at least not for an adult.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

That's not all he is saying because if it were then he would be correct.

Are you aware that when a gas is compressed that its temperature initially increases? Are you aware that the gas then begins to cool while it remains compressed? Pete is under the impression that the gas simply never cools. He believes that the compression maintains the gas' higher temperature.

Pete Rogers Replied 21/8/20:

Gravity is permanent, so the state of compression too. The trmperature rise is maintained because of that. The heat energy entering the Atmosphere is condensed to cause theis permanent enhancement. It is a flow system, not one time heating then switched off so to cool.

He is wrong.

His theory is that earth's gravity is maintaining the atmosphere's higher temperature, what he calls the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. Key in on the "Temperature Enhancement" part. You previously knew it under the name "Greenhouse Effect."

Pete Rogers Replied 21/8/20: The Theory initiating this Thread shows that The Greenhouse Effect has no impact on temperature and it is not another term for the ATE just a false explanation for it. The ATE is caused by atmospheric Autocompression. The Atmosphere is adiabatic, so there can be no conducted heat loss beyond its edge as there is only vacuum so the Heat Energy is conserved obeying the 1st law. The system is a flow continuum, however, so the ATE conducts the higher temperature back at the surface under the 2nd Law. This warms the surface producing more IR emission until the system reaches equilibrium at this higher temperature being caused by the effect of Gravity - the Autocompression - on the atmosphere. The mistake being made is overlooking the fact that this is a flow system maintaining the equilibrium with heat entering and exiting continually. What we witness is the equilibrium and its graduations which have been with us more or less since the beginning.


[quote]duncan61 wrote:does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

The earth is a body of matter. All matter has thermal energy. All matter is above absolute zero temperature. All matter radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.

No matter "retains" any energy. That is the wrong word. No matter can stop or otherwise reduce its loss of thermal energy which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of thermal energy loss is directly proportional to the matter's absolute temperature to the fourth power. There are a couple of constants in there as well but Temperature is the only variable that determines the rate of thermal energy loss. The cooler the matter is the slower the rate of loss. The higher the temperature of the matter, the greater the rate of loss ... to the fourth power. It's like when you drain your car's oil. When you pull the bolt the oil shoots out. As the oil level lowers the rate that the oil drains decreases. Eventually, the oil is a weak stream, then it's dripping, then you get one drop every few seconds ... etc...

Without making it too complicated, the amount of surface area affects the loss of thermal energy. More surface are means more loss. If you have a 45g metal ball bearing at 200C, it will lose thermal energy much more slowly than 45g of the same metal at the same temperature that has been hammered into a huge flat pancake. More surface area = more rapid loss.

This is why we refer to matter as a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can retain thermal energy any more than a spaghetti strainer can retain water. We therefore use the words "matter has associated thermal energy" but we don't use verbs that imply that it "contains" or "stores" or "traps" or holds" or "locks in" or anything of the sort.

.

Thanks IBDM I totally understand now.Keepit do not bring Covid up on threads I am part of.The travel restrictions will lift and I am going to fly all over the world measuring CO2 and I will find you.ITN can you answer the questions instead of just dening everything it gets very confusing for us dumbasses

I have already explained this sort of thing quite often. IBdaMann explained it well this time, there was no need to explain it again. It really comes down to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

There is always heat. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. If there is a difference of thermal energy between two regions, and any form of coupling between them (even light), there will be heat. You cannot stop it.

Something 'hot' is simply a concentration of thermal energy. Like any energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can dissipate. Indeed it will dissipate. Always. It is simply not possible to trap it in any way. Even Thermos bottles (also known as Dewar flasks) dissipate the thermal of any hot liquids kept in them. Over time, that hot liquid kept in them will reach room temperature. Also, over time, cold liquids kept in them will reach room temperature. This is simply a relative concentration of thermal energy (the room) dissipating into the relative void of thermal energy (the cold liquid).

As good a Thermos bottles are, even they cannot reduce heat to zero.

Under the Stefan-Boltzmann law, anything above absolute zero (including Thermos jugs containing a cold liquid!) convert thermal energy to light. The Thermos jug, and everything in it, 'glows' with infrared light. The jug is excellent for reducing heat loss by infrared light for it's contents (that's why the lining is silvered), but it's not perfect. Some can escape, even through silvered Thermos jugs or a silvered mylar blanket. There is simply no way to stop it all.

Heat can take the form of conductive heating, in which heat occurs by direct contact between two different temperature materials, or;
Convection, in which a material that is a fluid (such as air or water) moves around, dissipating thermal energy over a wider volume as it does so, or;
Radiance, in which thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All materials above absolute radiate light. The intensity of that light is what the Stefan-Boltzmann law describes.

Light itself cannot be trapped. Like heat, light is a flow of energy. It moves at, well, the speed of light.

In a vacuum, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Most radio engineers round this to 300 million meters per second (radio is light...just a very low frequency light).

This speed is slower as light travels through different materials. This why lenses work, and why fish (or you) looking upwards out of water can only see a kind of 'window' to what is above the water, known as Snell's Window. Outside of this window, all you see is a reflection of the bottom. The mirage in hot days is also caused by the way the speed of light varies in different density of materials, as well as the 'heat shimmer' you see on roads on a summer day. Light is slower in materials of different density. It's also why a prism works, and why a rainbow or a glory is possible. It's also why the sky is blue instead of black during the day.

When you take a substance down to within a fraction of a degree of absolute zero, light passing through it slows down to as low as the speed of sound within the material. It enters the material quickly, passes through the material slowly, and regains it's speed on the other side when it exits.

Can it ever be stopped completely? Theoretically, yes, but only when passing through matter AT absolute zero. However, matter itself also theoretically ceases to exist. Therefore, Einstein's law, E=mc^2 still applies, even at absolute zero, where both 'm' and 'E' are zero.

A photon is a packet of energy, moving at...well...the speed of light. A photon has no mass at the speed of light in a vacuum, but if you slow it down, it DOES have a mass. If you stop it completely, it becomes all mass, but that can only happen at absolute zero, where mass and light have no meaning anymore.

Will we ever reach absolute zero? No. Like accelerating a mass to the speed of light in a vacuum, it takes an infinite amount of energy to do it. A region of absolute zero is the ultimate in low entropy. Like mass and light, entropy itself also becomes zero. A perfect region of a void of energy. It would take an infinite amount of energy to create a zero entropy.

The practical upshot? There is always heat. Whether it's conductive, convective, or radiance, it is always there. There is always light. Whether it's radio, infrared, visible, or ultraviolet, it is always there. There is always thermal energy. This vibration of molecules is always there, so long as there is matter to vibrate.

Neither light, heat, nor thermal energy can be trapped or contained.
Light can be reduced (intensity lowered), heat can be reduced, but you can never reduce them to zero. Therefore, thermal energy can never be trapped or contained in any way.

There is always heat. There is always light. There is always a path for concentrated regions of energy to dissipate.

keepit wrote: ITN,As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

Pete Rogers wrote:
...malformed message deleted...

keepit wrote:
ITN,
As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

That's not all he is saying because if it were then he would be correct.

Are you aware that when a gas is compressed that its temperature initially increases? Are you aware that the gas then begins to cool while it remains compressed? Pete is under the impression that the gas simply never cools. He believes that the compression maintains the gas' higher temperature.

He is wrong.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

He would indeed be wrong if either the atmosphere was not adiabatic or if there was the single injection of energy into the system by gravity rather than the continuous application of it providing continuous enhancement of an incoming flow. I think you should find that this clears the matter up, but let me know if otherwise. Adiabatic means no heat can be conducted beyond the limits of the body because there is only vacuum – so far from being wrong he is right if you think about it.

His theory is that earth's gravity is maintaining the atmosphere's higher temperature, what he calls the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. Key in on the "Temperature Enhancement" part. You previously knew it under the name "Greenhouse Effect."

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

The Greenhouse Effect is not a previous name for the ATE, but an incorrect theory claiming to account for it. The correct theory is that the ATE comes from gravitational autocompression of the atmosphere, which increases the heat energy per unit volume by reducing capacity and ,bingo, the temperature goes up as it must.

duncan61 wrote:does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Anything at constant temperature is retaining heat energy, because without that retention the temperature would fall. Constant temperature comes from equilibrium between incoming energy and its gravitational enhancement going in and the level of IR going out. The amount of energy retained by the system is specified from the moment that thermal equilibrium is reached.

The earth is a body of matter. All matter has thermal energy. All matter is above absolute zero temperature. All matter radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.

No matter "retains" any energy. That is the wrong word.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

That is a mistake. When matter is at an equilibrium temperature then that temperature is precisely due to retained heat. You are overlooking the fact, if you will pardon me for saying so, that in this case matter is absorbing, enhancing then thermally radiating to achieve equilibrium. An analogy might be a reservoir where levels continue to increase until as much water goes down the spillway as enters the lake. No individual water particle is itself retained, but the continuum ensures that a great amount is. It cannot be otherwise if you think about it.

No matter can stop or otherwise reduce its loss of thermal energy
Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

It is not done by the matter, but by the replacement energy from continuous solar inflow that maintains the level.

which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of thermal energy loss is directly proportional to the matter's absolute temperature to the fourth power. There are a couple of constants in there as well but Temperature is the only variable that determines the rate of thermal energy loss. The cooler the matter is the slower the rate of loss. The higher the temperature of the matter, the greater the rate of loss ... to the fourth power. It's like when you drain your car's oil. When you pull the bolt the oil shoots out. As the oil level lowers the rate that the oil drains decreases. Eventually, the oil is a weak stream, then it's dripping, then you get one drop every few seconds ... etc...

Without making it too complicated, the amount of surface area affects the loss of thermal energy. More surface area means more loss. If you have a 45g metal ball bearing at 200C, it will lose thermal energy much more slowly than 45g of the same metal at the same temperature that has been hammered into a huge flat pancake. More surface area = more rapid loss.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Of course, but if it is receiving incoming heat it will come to thermal rest, so to speak, at an equilibrium temperature whereby the heat retained is the reason for the level held.

This is why we refer to matter as a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can retain thermal energy any more than a spaghetti strainer can retain water. We therefore use the words "matter has associated thermal energy" but we don't use verbs that imply that it "contains" or "stores" or "traps" or holds" or "locks in" or anything of the sort.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

In a flow system at equilibrium – just like the reservoir at its eventual constant level – "contains","stores", "traps", "holds", and "locks in" are appropriate terms, so it is only the level of such retained heat energy in our system that gives rise to the Equilibrium temperature we witness every second.

.

Thanks IBDM I totally understand now.Keepit do not bring Covid up on threads I am part of.The travel restrictions will lift and I am going to fly all over the world measuring CO2 and I will find you.ITN can you answer the questions instead of just dening everything it gets very confusing for us dumbasses

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

I share this sentiment. My experience here is that there is little explanation for rebuttal of arguments. Explanations – as I am providing here – are generally met with no more than a restatement of the earlier position as though the explanation in rebuttal had not been offered meaning there is no scientific engagement with it – this is a classic infringement of epistemology – the process by which opinion is found to be knowledge. It's is a fatal flaw when it arises killing off any attempts at co-operative science. It means that personal Prestige is the priority for someone with science simply being sacrificed in pursuit of that.
IBdeMann excelled himself recently in this regard. Having put fairly comprehensive reasons to him as to why the theory I am recommending does not transgress any Laws of Physics and how it is that the force of Gravity is converted into energy when it performs the negative work of compression - the basis for the Kelvin Helmhotz Effect, the intellectual limit of his ability to contribute was revealed in his sage reply "[crap post deleted]". Need I say more? It is the equivalent of him sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la la" isn't it?

I have already explained this sort of thing quite often. IBdaMann explained it well this time, there was no need to explain it again. It really comes down to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

The UV comes in with no effect on the troposphere, strikes the Earth, causing its temperature to rise, leading to some IR emission and conduction of heat into the adiabatic atmosphere due to surface contact. The Atmosphere is smaller than it would be because of the strength of our gravity, so much less in volume occupied. Accordingly the heat-energy thus entering achieves a greater value per unit volume than otherwise and the temperature goes up because it can do no other according to the 1st Law. This leads to conduction back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd law. This is the only way the atmosphere can transfer its warmth since, being adiabatic, beyond its edge is pure vacuum – the total insulator.

There is always heat. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. If there is a difference of thermal energy between two regions, and any form of coupling between them (even light), there will be heat. You cannot stop it.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Vacuum is precisely the perfect insulator because it contains no matter, so there definitely is such a thing and it occupies most of the Universe we have more volume of it than of anything else.

Something 'hot' is simply a concentration of thermal energy. Like any energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can dissipate. Indeed it will dissipate. Always. It is simply not possible to trap it in any way. Even Thermos bottles (also known as Dewar flasks) dissipate the thermal of any hot liquids kept in them. Over time, that hot liquid kept in them will reach room temperature. Also, over time, cold liquids kept in them will reach room temperature. This is simply a relative concentration of thermal energy (the room) dissipating into the relative void of thermal energy (the cold liquid).

As good a Thermos bottles are, even they cannot reduce heat to zero.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Of course the Thermos/Dewar can't, because there are no perfect vacuums employed, so there is no hope of any such thing. The atmosphere – on the other hand – is surrounded by perfect vacuum and is completely insulated and can transfer no heat into it. If your Thermos/Dewar was based on absolute vacuum there would be no heat loss. How could there be?

Under the Stefan-Boltzmann law, anything above absolute zero (including Thermos jugs containing a cold liquid!) convert thermal energy to light. The Thermos jug, and everything in it, 'glows' with infrared light. The jug is excellent for reducing heat loss by infrared light for it's contents (that's why the lining is silvered), but it's not perfect. Some can escape, even through silvered Thermos jugs or a silvered mylar blanket. There is simply no way to stop it all.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Except if there is a vacuum, that will stop it for sure.

Heat can take the form of conductive heating, in which heat occurs by direct contact between two different temperature materials, or;
Convection, in which a material that is a fluid (such as air or water) moves around, dissipating thermal energy over a wider volume as it does so, or;
Radiance, in which thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All materials above absolute radiate light. The intensity of that light is what the Stefan-Boltzmann law describes.

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

Solids and Liquid materials radiate light through gases (and vacuums), which are mediums for transit rather than sources.

Light itself cannot be trapped. Like heat, light is a flow of energy. It moves at, well, the speed of light.

In a vacuum, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Most radio engineers round this to 300 million meters per second (radio is light...just a very low frequency light).

Pete Rogers replied 21/8/20:

I agree with this, but would mention, purely for information, that none of these things are perceptible, pretty much, until they strike something solid or liquid.

This speed is slower as light travels through different materials. This why lenses work, and why fish (or you) looking upwards out of water can only see a kind of 'window' to what is above the water, known as Snell's Window. Outside of this window, all you see is a reflection of the bottom. The mirage in hot days is also caused by the way the speed of light varies in different density of materials, as well as the 'heat shimmer' you see on roads on a summer day. Light is slower in materials of different density. It's also why a prism works, and why a rainbow or a glory is possible. It's also why the sky is blue instead of black during the day.

When you take a substance down to within a fraction of a degree of absolute zero, light passing through it slows down to as low as the speed of sound within the material. It enters the material quickly, passes through the material slowly, and regains it's speed on the other side when it exits.

Can it ever be stopped completely? Theoretically, yes, but only when passing through matter AT absolute zero. However, matter itself also theoretically ceases to exist. Therefore, Einstein's law, E=mc^2 still applies, even at absolute zero, where both 'm' and 'E' are zero.

A photon is a packet of energy, moving at...well...the speed of light. A photon has no mass at the speed of light in a vacuum, but if you slow it down, it DOES have a mass. If you stop it completely, it becomes all mass, but that can only happen at absolute zero, where mass and light have no meaning anymore.

Will we ever reach absolute zero? No. Like accelerating a mass to the speed of light in a vacuum, it takes an infinite amount of energy to do it. A region of absolute zero is the ultimate in low entropy. Like mass and light, entropy itself also becomes zero. A perfect region of a void of energy. It would take an infinite amount of energy to create a zero entropy.

The practical upshot? There is always heat. Whether it's conductive, convective, or radiance, it is always there. There is always light. Whether it's radio, infrared, visible, or ultraviolet, it is always there. There is always thermal energy. This vibration of molecules is always there, so long as there is matter to vibrate.

Neither light, heat, nor thermal energy can be trapped or contained.
Light can be reduced (intensity lowered), heat can be reduced, but you can never reduce them to zero. Therefore, thermal energy can never be trapped or contained in any way.

There is always heat. There is always light. There is always a path for concentrated regions of energy to dissipate.

All that is true and, furthermore, when in equilibrium a system retains a reservoir of heat. In the case of the Earth and its Atmosphere this equilibrium is obtained when the outgoing IR balances the incoming UV enhanced by the reservoir of the ATE. Whilst I am always pleased to look at properly presented objections to points being made it doesn't apply to gainsaying and other improperly constructed arguments. IBdeMann excelling himself is an example of how paltry things can get. It just takes the ill will of one or two egoists to vandalise the attempt. I look forward to bona fide objections instead of that kind of stuff.

Pete Rogers wrote:
...deleted malformed message...

Pete Rogers wrote:...mucked up post...

duncan61 wrote:
Pete do you think its warming or not

Pete Rogers replied 22/8/20
Hi Duncan. Not in the long term. We are in the latest of the interglacial periods of the current Ice-Age with the recovery temperature peaking at the time of the Holocene Maximum around 7,500 Years ago. The temperature has fluctuated up and down since, but never returned to this level. Furthermore whilst the subsequent Minoan warm period was therefore below this the Roman warm period below the Minoan, then the Medieval warm period below the Roman and the current level below the Medieval (they harvested barley in Greenland a thousand years ago). In the sense that the latest interim Maximum, which appears to have peaked in 1998, is warmer than the Little Ice Age - from which we have therefore recovered - we have warmed, but only in the short term. In the Climategate Emails the UEA Climate Researchers wrote "We are going to have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." to get the warming graph they wanted. We are cooling on any relevant historic scale.

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:...mucked up post...

Your post is WAY too mucked up for me to waste my time on it.

Please learn how to post properly. This is my last word on the matter, unless you wish for me to teach you how to properly format a post...

Pete Rogers replied 22/8/20 Yes. I haven't found any reply format instructions anywhere is the problem, so it's trial and error - maybe more error than trial. If I find them I'll fall in line.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
...deleted malformed message...

You have been warned about this repeatedly. If you want to have a conversation, don't muck up the formatting of your posts.

Pete Rogers replied 20/8/20 Received no warning - when was that? Unable to locate instruction/advice on achievement of required reply format is the problem.

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
ITN,
As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

keepit,

You are speaking in Liberal again...

** What "path/s" are you speaking of?
** Define "GHG's".
** Define "global warming".

Pete Rogers wrote:Unable to locate instruction/advice on achievement of required reply format is the problem.

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:...mucked up post...

Your post is WAY too mucked up for me to waste my time on it.

Please learn how to post properly. This is my last word on the matter, unless you wish for me to teach you how to properly format a post...

Pete Rogers replied 22/8/20 Yes. I haven't found any reply format instructions anywhere is the problem, so it's trial and error - maybe more error than trial. If I find them I'll fall in line.

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:...mucked up post...

Your post is WAY too mucked up for me to waste my time on it.

Please learn how to post properly. This is my last word on the matter, unless you wish for me to teach you how to properly format a post...

Pete Rogers replied 22/8/20 Yes. I haven't found any reply format instructions anywhere is the problem, so it's trial and error - maybe more error than trial. If I find them I'll fall in line.

See how my words are appearing below the 'quoted' text? That's because I'm not using any 'quote' tags where I am typing my new message to you. The quote tags are meant to quote what other people have said prior so that it is clearer what is being responded to. Hopefully that helps? Otherwise I can try to help with specific things that you're not understanding regarding the formatting of posts.

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Pete do you think its warming or not

...deleted malformed message...

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:...mucked up post...

Your post is WAY too mucked up for me to waste my time on it.

Please learn how to post properly. This is my last word on the matter, unless you wish for me to teach you how to properly format a post...

...deleted malformed message...

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
...deleted malformed message...

You have been warned about this repeatedly. If you want to have a conversation, don't muck up the formatting of your posts.

...deleted malformed message...

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
ITN,
As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

keepit,

You are speaking in Liberal again...

** What "path/s" are you speaking of?
** Define "GHG's".
** Define "global warming".

GHG's are any gases that are not transparent to IR.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The "path/s" are those followed by the deflected IR frequencies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Thing is they are not longer, because many very short ones come from reflection back to the surface, these are often tiny because the GHG's are saturated.

Pete Rogers wrote:
More importantly the reflectd IR must go back to the surface cooler than it left

Pete Rogers wrote:
simple Thermodynamics -

Pete Rogers wrote:
thus with cooling effect.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Because of this saturation more or less none of the absorbable IR escapes.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This process doesn't cause warming though, because the opaque GHG molecule receiving energy from the deflection then emits it at its own signature frequency. GHG's simply convert the frequency of the intercepted IR which then goes straight to space.

Pete Rogers wrote:
"Global Warming" is a theory as defined by the IPCC,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but not one I subscribe to.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You should be aware of the content of the theory,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so if you need it to be defined for you why not go to the IPCC website?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Why ask ITN to do something you should do for yourself?

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:Unable to locate instruction/advice on achievement of required reply format is the problem.

Always ensure your own new words for the new post are outside [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags.

The quote tags are exclusively for words that have been written before and you want to "quote" them.

Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers replied Thanks IBdaMann, Willco. I'm sure I'll make other slip ups before getting it generally right, but that helps for now.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:Unable to locate instruction/advice on achievement of required reply format is the problem.

Always ensure your own new words for the new post are outside [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags.

The quote tags are exclusively for words that have been written before and you want to "quote" them.

Thanks IBdaMann, Willco. I'm sure I'll make other slip ups before getting it generally right, but that helps for now.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
ITN,
As you say, there is always path. But some paths take longer and that is the whole thing with GHG's. The path through GHG's take longer and that is the reason global warming occurs.

keepit,

You are speaking in Liberal again...

** What "path/s" are you speaking of?
** Define "GHG's".
** Define "global warming".

GHG's are any gases that are not transparent to IR.

So...all gases. I suppose you mean there is greenhouse water and greenhouse earth as well, since these also absorb infrared frequencies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The "path/s" are those followed by the deflected IR frequencies.

A frequency is not deflected when light is absorbed. The photon is destroyed.

Absorption is not reflection. There is no 'saturation point'.

Pete Rogers wrote:
More importantly the reflected IR must go back to the surface cooler than it left

Pete Rogers wrote:
simple Thermodynamics -

Pete Rogers wrote:
thus with cooling effect.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Because of this saturation more or less none of the absorbable IR escapes.

No, it goes everywhere. Light is emitted in all directions.

Pete Rogers wrote:
"Global Warming" is a theory as defined by the IPCC,

Nope. They do not define 'global warming'. Define 'global warming'. It is not a theory. You cannot create a theory out of an undefined word. That's a void argument fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
but not one I subscribe to.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You should be aware of the content of the theory,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so if you need it to be defined for you why not go to the IPCC website?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Why ask ITN to do something you should do for yourself?

I am not trying to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

Fix your posts. Until you do, you conversations here will be extremely limited.

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers replied Thanks IBdaMann, Willco. I'm sure I'll make other slip ups before getting it generally right, but that helps for now.

You don't need to write "Pete Rogers Replied..." It is already assumed if your words are outside the tags. Specifying "who replied" is only for quotations within the tags to show who it is that said what is being quoted.

In your post, it is assumed that you are the one speaking.

.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Thanks

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers replied Thanks IBdaMann, Willco. I'm sure I'll make other slip ups before getting it generally right, but that helps for now.

You don't need to write "Pete Rogers Replied..." It is already assumed if your words are outside the tags. Specifying "who replied" is only for quotations within the tags to show who it is that said what is being quoted.

In your post, it is assumed that you are the one speaking.

.

Thanks

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers replied Thanks IBdaMann, Willco. I'm sure I'll make other slip ups before getting it generally right, but that helps for now.

You don't need to write "Pete Rogers Replied..." It is already assumed if your words are outside the tags. Specifying "who replied" is only for quotations within the tags to show who it is that said what is being quoted.

In your post, it is assumed that you are the one speaking.

.

Thanks

Thank you. Now we can have a conversation.

gfm7175 wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Thanks

This post was done to perfection. There was no "Pete Rogers replied" language in it, just the message that you wished to convey, completely unmucked. Good job!


You will also notice within the thread itself that the [ quote ] [ /quote ] part of the conversation (the part that you are responding to) has a darker background to it, while the area where your response text is has a white background to it. This (on its own) distinguishes who is saying what. As ITN was saying, this forum automatically does such general formatting when you press the "quote" button below someone's post that you wish to respond to.


When people such as IBD, ITN, and myself break down posts "line by line", we make use of the following coding for each line of text that we are responding to, but without any spaces:

[ quote ] [ b ] Pete Rogers wrote: [ /b ] {insert Pete's words here} [ /quote ]


For a beginner, however, I would recommend posting as Harvey posts, just by pressing the "quote" button below the post that you wish to respond to and then just type out your whole response below all of the text that appears in the response box.


I would also suggest eventually learning some very basic BBCode (Bulletin Board Code), such as:

[ b ] [ /b ] = bold text, then ends the bold formatting.
[ i ] [ /i ] = italic text, then ends the italic formatting.
[ quote ] = begins the quote box formatting.
[ /quote ] = ends the quote box formatting.


Of course, when you are actually making use of it, you would not leave any spaces as I did to show you what to type. With some trial and error (plenty of practice), you'll get the hang of understanding and making use of BBCode fairly quickly.

Pete Rogers wrote:Thanks, that's most kind of you to take time for my benefit. I'll try to conform, but early days mean I'm unlkely to be 100% straight off, but let's hope so.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose.

Into the Night wroteWRONG. An argument must be free of fallacy or it is an invalid argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. The existence of a theory does not make it a theory of science. A theory of science must also be falsifiable.

Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument,
Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.
Into the Night wroteArgument by repetition is in and of itself a fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science,
Into the Night wroteScience is not a person.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal.
Into the Night wroteScience is not people at all.

Into the Night wroteScience is a set of falsifiable theories.

Into the Night wroteAge of theory is no factor.

Into the Night wroteInsult fallacy.

Into the Night wroteDenial of science.

Pete Rogers wrote:I wonder if we should open a book on which it is?
Into the Night wroteScience isn't a book.

Pete Rogers wrote:I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted,
Into the Night wroteScience isn't an award or a prize.

Pete Rogers wrote:but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread,

Into the Night wroteAlready done. I've exposed you for what you are.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.
Into the Night wroteI am not here to help you. I am here to expose you for what you are.

Into the Night wroteYou are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming.

Into the Night wroteYou are a fundamentalist. You are a liar. You are a denier of science, mathematics, and now logic. You cut and paste the arguments of others as your own, stealing arguments, even invalid ones. Your native tongue is Liberal, not English.

Into the Night wroteYour religion is based on lies, falsehoods, and buzzwords.

Into the Night wroteThat is what you are. I cannot help you, but I can expose you for what you are.

Into the Night wroteAre you still looking for the phallic of your dreams?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose.

Into the Night wroteWRONG. An argument must be free of fallacy or it is an invalid argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. The existence of a theory does not make it a theory of science. A theory of science must also be falsifiable.

There is no fallacy because the logic checks out and what follows on in evidence falls in line with that logic thus validating the argument -

Pete Rogers wrote:
where have you been to come up with something like this?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Since you so evidently and vehemently disagree why fail to prove your contrary point - which requires your providing an explanation for readers to consider and cross-check. Any explanation you provide must back your bald assertions up incontrovertibly in order to shed any light that we may see your point. It is fraudulent for any examiner to claim to have falsified a position by dint of nothing more than bald assertions of denial. Without specifics your contribution is a waste of your time as it cannot be weighed up so must be dropped.

Pete Rogers wrote:
My theory is falsifiableby the provision of evidence that both withstands scrutiny itself and overthrows a particular of my argument;

Pete Rogers wrote:
which is testable and/or follows the known Laws of Physics:

Pete Rogers wrote:
otherwise it properly stands for truth.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument,
Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented.

To the contrary I made several arguments all of them unfailingly logical and according to evidence provided so they are indubitably valid - where have you been?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Again you make bald statements of dismissal with no explanatory content to back them up.

Pete Rogers wrote:
To be of any worth; and here is your opportunity: you must show with precision the respects in which any of the following particulars; comprising the theory: are false and why?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Particular 1. The Earth's Atmosphere is adiabatic, so it cannot lose temperature except by conduction to the solid/liquid surface with which it is in contact.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Particular 2. The temperature of any gas body rises due to autocompression.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This is because of the Kelvin Helmholz Effect and if the gas body is large enough the temperature increases by the millions of degrees necessary for star formation;

Pete Rogers wrote:
luckily our atmosphere is a relatively tiny gas body by cosmic standards so its autocompression only accounts for what is our small atmospheric temperature enhancement.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Particular 3. Heat passing from the uncompressed surface into the compressed atmosphere therefeore undergoes temperature enhancement because of the lost volume arising from autocompression at 10 tonnes per sq metre experienced at the interface

Pete Rogers wrote:
Particular 4. This addition to temperature is the result of the energy created by the negative work accomplished by gravitational compression, meaning that the conserved energy (1st Law) is shared between fewer volume units than it would have available to it at lower pressure; so the heat energy per unit volume is increased to that extent and thus the temperature likewise.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Particular 5. The enhanced temperature must obey the 2nd Law and conduct itself back to the surface

Pete Rogers wrote:
consequently increasing IR emission to reach an enhanced equilibrium level.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This additional temperature is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)

Pete Rogers wrote:
Provided that these particulars are correct

Pete Rogers wrote:
and you therefore do not succeed in your efforts to falsify any of them in a satisfactory manner

Pete Rogers wrote:
the conclusion must follow that the GE is not responsible for the ATE and therefore has no thermal potency: accordingly neither; accordingly: does CO2 or mankind's 3% of it.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I invite you to explain your objections to any of these particulars in a sensible and explanatory mannerl.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If you throw your toys out of your stroller again instead I will not be picking them up next time: this is the last time.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Either observe the rules of analysis (epistemology) or stop wasting everybody's time please.
Inversion fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.
Into the Night wroteArgument by repetition is in and of itself a fallacy.

To repeat a valid argument that has not been shown to have been apprehended by the interlocutor does not somehow magically convert it into a fallacy- surely I should't need to explain that to you should I?

Yes. It is a fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science,
Into the Night wroteScience is not a person.

Aren't you even aware that the Kelvin Helmholz Effect - often referred to as Kelvin Helmholz- is not a person, but a scientific theory employed and relied upon by the sciences today? Please confirm that you now understand and will withdraw your comment.

Nothing to do with temperature of the atmosphere. Strawman fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal.

Into the Night wroteScience is not people at all.

Trouble is that according to the previous comment it is you who are confused about which is which; not I: so please withdraw this to avoid further embarrassment.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteScience is a set of falsifiable theories.

All aspects of this theory are testable or in compliance with the known Laws of Physics so this is irrelevant - the theory is falsifiable in accordance with Popper.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteAge of theory is no factor.

Who said it was?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Unless you can show otherwise; which you can't:

Pete Rogers wrote:
the aged Kelvin Helholz (Effect) remains to stand for truth,

Pete Rogers wrote:
however, according to its universal acceptance except by you - if I understand you correctly - at least I presume this is meant by you as some kind of an objection to the validity of Kelvin Helholtz; please clarify.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteInsult fallacy.

An insult fallacy means that you are not wrong just because someone calls you an idiot,

Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas if the argument is true and someone is idiotic enough to make nonsensical objections, then drawing attention to his foolishness is not fallacial. Do you know what a fallacy is?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteDenial of science.

I have dealt with this in strict accordance with Science, so you'd better explain yourself as a matter of credibility

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:I wonder if we should open a book on which it is?
Into the Night wroteScience isn't a book.

I was referring to betting odds in a Bookies book

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted,
Into the Night wroteScience isn't an award or a prize.

You can say that again, but a paper that shows the world that Kelvin Helmholz is wrong deserves one don't you think - it being such an extraordinary falsification of a Law of Physics you claim to have accomplished (though with no explanation so far).

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread,

You don't get to judge. You are not the king.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteAlready done. I've exposed you for what you are.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.
Into the Night wroteI am not here to help you. I am here to expose you for what you are.

I refer you to the content so far showing that you have only exposed yourself so far and that that is how it must remain unless and until you provide the missing explanations which then withstand scrutiny.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteYou are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming.

To my enormous amusement I now find that you haven't even understood that my argument is specifically to prove that there is no global warming. Again I ask "Where have you been?"
Lie. You are simply calling 'global warming'->'ATE'. Define 'global warming'.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wroteYou are a fundamentalist. You are a liar. You are a denier of science, mathematics, and now logic. You cut and paste the arguments of others as your own, stealing arguments, even invalid ones. Your native tongue is Liberal, not English.

Let me refer to your objection to the use of insult earlier in the piece and ask you to read this content again and consider the level of hypocrisy you are pleased to indulge yourself in.

Pete Rogers wrote:
One commonly uses the Laws of Physics,

Pete Rogers wrote:
it doesn't matter whether you quote them or cut and paste them. I see now that perhaps you make your own up to avoid plagiarism, but unless they are identical to the at you Laws you will not cut and paste they will be wrong won't they!

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteYour religion is based on lies, falsehoods, and buzzwords.

Since I reject all religion and simply employ epistemology to opinion it is hard to see your point - please elaborate

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteThat is what you are. I cannot help you, but I can expose you for what you are.

Steady Soldier, you'll give yourself a hernia if you carry on like that. Try sticking to facts and then perhaps you won't lose it like this and stay friendly instead. That's the idea - no emotion, it has no place in science

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteAre you still looking for the phallic of your dreams?

What in the blue blazes is that supposed to suggest Try to employ reasonable argument rather than losing your temper and having a hissy-fit. This is about truth not hostility.