Global warming is not anthropogenic

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere

IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.

Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.

Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.

Swan wrote:
So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere

IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

OK, if that's your game, how's this. It's an extract from a textbook used to educate students at MIT.

It is called "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" and this is from Thermodynamics Chapter 3 and it reads as follows

"In defining work, we focus on the effects that the system has on its surroundings. Thus we define work as being positive when the system does work on the surroundings (energy leaves the system as with expansion). If work is done on the system (energy added to the system as with compression), the work is negative."

If you think that "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" is a theological tract teaching "WACKY" religious ideas I think we can see your problem and easily conclude that reading your stuff is a waste of time.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

Indeed I have been informed of this repeatedly, but the problem is that the person doing the informing has been you; so you will appreciate from the immediately preceding comments that paying it any attention would be foolish - so I don't. You even give it as your considered opinion that I am the one responsible for the idea of negative work, how stupid is that? I already said gravity compresses the atmosphere, so what's new? Incidentally gas bodies that are not atmospheres are also compressed - by their own gravity - without the need for solid surfaces.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Nobody is looking for converts just people who know how what to read and how to discriminate between that which is knowledge and that which is dumb opinion. I simply look for people who understand and follow the principles of epistemology, which indubitably doesn't include you.

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space

My point is why doesn't the air pressure equalize with its surroundings?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere

IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

OK, if that's your game, how's this. It's an extract from a textbook used to educate students at MIT.

It is called "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" and this is from Thermodynamics Chapter 3 and it reads as follows

"In defining work, we focus on the effects that the system has on its surroundings. Thus we define work as being positive when the system does work on the surroundings (energy leaves the system as with expansion). If work is done on the system (energy added to the system as with compression), the work is negative."

If you think that "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" is a theological tract teaching "WACKY" religious ideas I think we can see your problem and easily conclude that reading your stuff is a waste of time.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

Indeed I have been informed of this repeatedly, but the problem is that the person doing the informing has been you; so you will appreciate from the immediately preceding comments that paying it any attention would be foolish - so I don't. You even give it as your considered opinion that I am the one responsible for the idea of negative work, how stupid is that? I already said gravity compresses the atmosphere, so what's new? Incidentally gas bodies that are not atmospheres are also compressed - by their own gravity - without the need for solid surfaces.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Nobody is looking for converts just people who know how what to read and how to discriminate between that which is knowledge and that which is dumb opinion. I simply look for people who understand and follow the principles of epistemology, which indubitably doesn't include you.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.

Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.

Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.

Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.

Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

Even space rocks have an atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space

My point is why doesn't the air pressure equalize with its surroundings?

Spongy Iris wrote:Hmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Hmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

I'll answer that for you.

"curvature of space-time" = gravity. Einstein expressed gravity as a curvature of space-time as defined in his theory of General Relativity.

Basically, mass causes space-time to curve which causes mass to accelerate towards it, i.e. gravitational attraction between two bodies.

Example: Imagine the space-time continuum is a soft mattress. You place a small ball on the mattress and it causes a small depression in the mattress. You then lay down in the center of the mattress causing a large depression in the mattress and the ball accelerates towards you. The surface of the mattress is the space-time that is curved by mass and Einstein's Relativity is comprised simply of the calculus/analytic geometry of those types of equations ... and they magically calculate gravity. Voila!

... and gravity holds the atmosphere onto the planet, or as Einstein would say were he alive, that the planet curves space-time and causes the atmosphere to accelerate towards it.

.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...

Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...

Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this

How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

Spongy Iris wrote:So space and time is like a mattress?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:So space and time is like a mattress?

Yes, space-time is like a mattress, if similes may be employed.




.

Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Two bodies "attract" each other

Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1

Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1

Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...

Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this

How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE

Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...

Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this

How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

Gravity does not push from above it always pulls toward the center of mass. If you are traveling away from the center of mass it pulls you back toward the center as a resisting force, if you are traveling toward the center of mass it still pulls you to the center of mass as an attractive force.

Yawn

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.

To be scientific about your post, what is "attraction" based on? A poorly grounded electrical line will create an attractive force. This electrocutes people. When I was a kid, a father at a swimming pool with his kids was electrocuted in this manor.
Was he pulled or pushed towards the faulty ground? Maybe he moved within the field? It's potential ended his life. How do we quantify how a field interacts with mass?
With Einstein, his father's company made electrical generators, with me, am aware that electrical fields like gravity can influence their environment. Kind of why I don't care for mind games.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.

To be scientific about your post, what is "attraction" based on? A poorly grounded electrical line will create an attractive force. This electrocutes people. When I was a kid, a father at a swimming pool with his kids was electrocuted in this manor.
Was he pulled or pushed towards the faulty ground? Maybe he moved within the field? It's potential ended his life. How do we quantify how a field interacts with mass?
With Einstein, his father's company made electrical generators, with me, am aware that electrical fields like gravity can influence their environment. Kind of why I don't care for mind games.

A poorly grounded electrical system (or one with no ground at all!) is not an attractive force. It is just some AC voltage above ground. Birds happily sit on wires with 7.2kv on them, and even as high as 800kv. They're fine. They are not electrocuted because they are not touching the ground or any other wire at the same time.

Spongy Iris wrote: A different explanation is there are streams of unseen force impacting all material objects from all directions.

According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging forces, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of forces on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together.

Spongy Iris wrote: No net directional force

The theory posits that gravity force pushes in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force.

Spongy Iris wrote:Two bodies "attract" each other

With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the force that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by less force than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by less force from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces. Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies.