IbdaMann physics mistake

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > IbdaMann physics mistake > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

09-12-2024 19:20
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	WRONG. Gravity and mass is what causes an atmosphere to form. Blatant lie. Gravity causes the mass to fall on the ground and stay there. Energy is needed to lift the mass up again. Gravity can not lift the gas molecules up again. WRONG. The atmosphere happens because of gravity and mass. The atmosphere is caused by the energy. Temperature is needed for an atmosphere to form around the planet. Gravity causes the molecules of any gas to fall down on the ground. Temperature rises those molecules up in the air and holds them there. Without temperature the molecules would fall onto the ground. WRONG. The air is part of any planet or moon. Because planets have temperature which allows an atmosphere to form. You can't In theory we could boil the oceans and keep them up in the air. The atmosphere would become very thick if all the oceans are in the air. In practise we have no power sources to do that. Earth at one point in history simply was so hot that the oceans stayed in the air. Then it cooled and the oceans rained down. WRONG. Gravity and mass determine the atmosphere of any body. Blatant lie. Atmosphere is caused by the temperature of the planet. The more warm the planet is, the thicker the atmosphere. Oceans are only possible because the temperature is so cool that the water is in a liquide state. Raise the temperature and the water becomes gaseous. WRONG. Gravity and mass are not temperature You need temperature for an atmosphere to form. without temperature all the gas molecules would fall on the ground. The higher the temperature, the more thicker and higher the atmosphere becomes. The lower the temperature, the more thinner and lower the atmosphere becomes. You cannot 'thicken' an atmosphere. There have been millions and millions of different atmospheric conditions on earth since the beginning. The oceans were up in the sky at one point. Then the planet cooled, the oceans rained down. The atmosphere became more and more cooler and thinner. Nowadays the atmosphere is so thin that prehistoric large dinosaurs that were able to fly would not be able to fly today because of too thin atmosphere. In thicker atmosphere they were able to fly because it was easier to create lift in thicker atmosphere. WRONG. The atmosphere is not contained in a closed container. Irrelevant. More temperature means more atmosphere. Simple as that. WRONG. As long as there is water, there will be water vapor. Clouds are not water vapor. Temperature is needed for the vapor to form. Without temperature no vapor. More temperature, more vapor. In theory it is possible to vaporize oceans if you have enough energy. Attempted proof by inversion. IbdaMann is a smart guy. He eventually will understand the mistake he made. He thinks that Venus is so hot because of the pressure that the atmosphere exerts on the ground. Actually the Venus is so hot because Venus is simply hot from inside molten core and the increadibly hot and thick atmosphere is the effect of it not the cause of it. Simple as that.
09-12-2024 20:30
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	The mass of the oceans is about 270 times of our current atmosphere. In theory if we could somehow vaporize oceans and hold them at gaseous state the atmosphere would get about 270 times thicker and the atmospheric pressure would become about 270 bars. The surface temperature would be very high of course. Only very high surface temperature could sustain such an atmosphere. The energy to sustain such a temperature of the ground which keeps the oceans up in the sky must be continuos raw energy. IbdaMann argues that the thick atmosphere itself is the cause why the ground is so hot. He has simply turned the cause and effect upside down. Actually, by this logic he is a warmazombie because by this logic atmospheric gases cause the temperature of the planet. IbdaMann, you are a smart guy . Accept your error and lets move on. Edited on 09-12-2024 20:35
09-12-2024 20:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: WRONG. Gravity and mass is what causes an atmosphere to form. Blatant lie. Gravity causes the mass to fall on the ground and stay there. The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. Xadoman wrote: Energy is needed to lift the mass up again. The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. Xadoman wrote: Gravity can not lift the gas molecules up again. The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. Xadoman wrote: WRONG. The atmosphere happens because of gravity and mass. The atmosphere is caused by the energy. The presence of a gas is not energy. Xadoman wrote: Temperature is needed for an atmosphere to form around the planet. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Gravity causes the molecules of any gas to fall down on the ground. Gas is not a solid. Xadoman wrote: Temperature rises those molecules up in the air and holds them there. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Without temperature the molecules would fall onto the ground. Nope. Just gravity and mass. There is no such thing as mass without a temperature. WRONG. The air is part of any planet or moon. Because planets have temperature which allows an atmosphere to form. [/quote] There is no such thing as mass without a temperature. Xadoman wrote: You can't In theory we could boil the oceans and keep them up in the air. It is not possible to boil the oceans. Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere would become very thick if all the oceans are in the air. Oceans don't just rise into the air. Xadoman wrote: In practise we have no power sources to do that. Earth at one point in history simply was so hot that the oceans stayed in the air. Then it cooled and the oceans rained down. Oceans don't rise into the air. Xadoman wrote: WRONG. Gravity and mass determine the atmosphere of any body. Blatant lie. Physics is not a lie. Xadoman wrote: Atmosphere is caused by the temperature of the planet. The more warm the planet is, the thicker the atmosphere. Nope. Higher temperatures mean thinner air, since like any collections of gas, it expands. This is why aircraft if more difficulty flying on hot days. Xadoman wrote: Oceans are only possible because the temperature is so cool that the water is in a liquide state. Raise the temperature and the water becomes gaseous. You can't raise the temperature of the oceans. Xadoman wrote: WRONG. Gravity and mass are not temperature You need temperature for an atmosphere to form. without temperature all the gas molecules would fall on the ground. The higher the temperature, the more thicker and higher the atmosphere becomes. The lower the temperature, the more thinner and lower the atmosphere becomes. Nope. Hot air is thinner. It is why aircraft have more difficulty flying on a hot day. Xadoman wrote: You cannot 'thicken' an atmosphere. There have been millions and millions of different atmospheric conditions on earth since the beginning. How do you know? Xadoman wrote: The oceans were up in the sky at one point. Oceans aren't up in the sky. Water is denser than gas. Xadoman wrote: Then the planet cooled, the oceans rained down. The oceans cannot rain down. Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere became more and more cooler and thinner. Cooler air is thicker. Xadoman wrote: Nowadays the atmosphere is so thin that prehistoric large dinosaurs that were able to fly would not be able to fly today because of too thin atmosphere. Cooler air is thicker. Xadoman wrote: In thicker atmosphere they were able to fly because it was easier to create lift in thicker atmosphere. Cooler air is thicker. Xadoman wrote: WRONG. The atmosphere is not contained in a closed container. Irrelevant. More temperature means more atmosphere. Simple as that. An atmosphere is not caused by temperature. It is caused by gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: WRONG. As long as there is water, there will be water vapor. Clouds are not water vapor. Temperature is needed for the vapor to form. Clouds are not water vapor. Xadoman wrote: Without temperature no vapor. No mass exists that has no temperature. Xadoman wrote: More temperature, more vapor. In theory it is possible to vaporize oceans if you have enough energy. It is not possible to boil the oceans. Xadoman wrote: Attempted proof by inversion. IbdaMann is a smart guy. He eventually will understand the mistake he made. He thinks that Venus is so hot because of the pressure that the atmosphere exerts on the ground. Nope. Venus is so hot because it's closer to the Sun. Xadoman wrote: Actually the Venus is so hot because Venus is simply hot from inside molten core and the increadibly hot and thick atmosphere is the effect of it not the cause of it. Simple as that. Nope. Venus is closer to the Sun. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-12-2024 20:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: The mass of the oceans is about 270 times of our current atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: In theory if we could somehow vaporize oceans and hold them at gaseous state the atmosphere would get about 270 times thicker and the atmospheric pressure would become about 270 bars. It is not possible to boil the oceans. Xadoman wrote: The surface temperature would be very high of course. Only very high surface temperature could sustain such an atmosphere. The energy to sustain such a temperature of the ground which keeps the oceans up in the sky must be continuos raw energy. Oceans are denser than air. They are not up in the sky. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann argues that the thick atmosphere itself is the cause why the ground is so hot. Mantra 30a. Venus is hotter because it's closer to the Sun. Xadoman wrote: He has simply turned the cause and effect upside down. Actually, by this logic he is a warmazombie because by this logic atmospheric gases cause the temperature of the planet. Mantra 30a. Venus is hotter because it's closer to the Sun. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann, you are a smart guy . Accept your error and lets move on. Mantra 30a. Attempted proof by inversion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2024 00:49
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. False equivalency fallacy. Gases are not solids. The temperature of the gas keeps it floating up in the air. Without temperature the gas molecules would rain down with acceleration 9.8m/s2. The presence of a gas is not energy. Gases need energy to exist. Without energy there is no gas. Gas is not a solid. Then stop saying like they are. Gas molecules only float in the atmosphere because of the energy. Without energy they would collapse on the ground. Nope. Just gravity and mass. There is no such thing as mass without a temperature. Irrelevant. Temperatures vary. Atmosphere thickness and temperature are caused by the temperature of the planet. Hot earth has thicker atmosphere. Cold earth has thinner atmosphere. Very hot earth has very thick atmosphere. Very cold earth has very thin atmosphere. Simple themodynamics. It is not possible to boil the oceans. It is. With enough energy it is possible to boil oceans and keep them up in the atmosphere. It is simple physics. The atmospheric pressure would be 270 bars and surface temperature of earth would be problably more then Venus which has an atmospheric pressure about 90 bars. Oceans don't just rise into the air. With enough energy they would. Simple physics. Nope. Higher temperatures mean thinner air, since like any collections of gas, it expands. This is why aircraft if more difficulty flying on hot days. Irrelevant. You are talking about convection. The temperature of the atmosphere of Venus is much much higher and the surface pressure is about 90 bars compared to 1 bar on earth. By your logic the atmosphere of Venuc should be very thin. It is however very thick and hot. You can't raise the temperature of the oceans. With enough energy everything is possible. Simple physics. Nope. Hot air is thinner. It is why aircraft have more difficulty flying on a hot day. Venus proves you wrong. Venus has very hot atmosphere and the surface pressure is about 90 bars. It is 90 times more than on Earth. How do you know? I belive the earth has been cooling for billions of years. In the beginning the surface was molten, then the surface hardened, at some point oceans started to rain down, ice formed on the poles etc etc. The atmosphere gets thinner and colder as the earth cools down. Common sense, nothing more. Oceans aren't up in the sky. Water is denser than gas. With enough energy we could make the oceans gas again. Simple physics. The oceans cannot rain down At some point in history the earth cooled to a state that water started to condense on the surface. As the earth continued to cool the amount of water that had been condensed started to rise. At some point there was so much water that the oceans formed. Cooler air is thicker. Venus proves you wrong. 90 bars vs 1 bar. Not even close. An atmosphere is not caused by temperature. It is caused by gravity and mass. There is no atmosphere without energy. Gases need energy to exist. Without energy the gases would collapse on the surface of the planet. Matter can not levitate in the gravitational field of a planet without energy. Simple physics and common sense. Nope. Venus is so hot because it's closer to the Sun. It is because Venus has incredible hot molten core and the crust is thinner than on earth. This causes the surface of the Venus to be incredibly hot which also makes the atmosphere to be incredibly hot and thick. Sun is not enough for that. Earth gets 1300w/m2 and Venus gets 2600w/m2. If we could add additional 1300w heater on every m2 that gets illuminated by the sun then I am not sure that we could create Venus like conditions on Earth. I think much more energy is needed. Argument from randU fallacy. The mass of atmosphere is estimated roughly. The mass of the oceans is also estimated roughly. Does not have to precise approximation. It is estimated roughly that the mass of oceans is about 250-270 times of the mass of the atmosphere. Mantra 30a. Venus is hotter because it's closer to the Sun. Already explained. The sun is not enough. Mantra 30a. Attempted proof by inversion. IbdaMann needs to understand his mistake. He thinks that the pressure from atmospheric gases could make the surface of the planet very hot. He thinks Venus is very hot because the atmospheric pressure is very hihg and that causes the surface to be very hot. He needs to understand that the atmosphere is the effect and the cause is the temperature of the planet which is caused by the incredibly hot molten inside of the Venus and thin crust. The Sun also adds energy to the Venus but only 2600W/m2.
10-12-2024 23:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. False equivalency fallacy. Gases are not solids. I never said gases were solids, moron. Pay attention. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of the gas keeps it floating up in the air. Without temperature the gas molecules would rain down with acceleration 9.8m/s2. Nope. All masses have a temperature. Xadoman wrote: The presence of a gas is not energy. Gases need energy to exist. Without energy there is no gas. All mass has a temperature. Xadoman wrote: Gas is not a solid. Then stop saying like they are. Gas molecules only float in the atmosphere because of the energy. Without energy they would collapse on the ground. All mass has a temperature. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Just gravity and mass. There is no such thing as mass without a temperature. Irrelevant. Temperatures vary. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: Atmosphere thickness and temperature are caused by the temperature of the planet. Hot earth has thicker atmosphere. Cold earth has thinner atmosphere. Very hot earth has very thick atmosphere. Very cold earth has very thin atmosphere. Nope. Hot air is thinner. It's why aircraft have trouble flying on hot days. Xadoman wrote: Simple themodynamics. You are discussing thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: It is not possible to boil the oceans. It is. Nope. You don't have enough energy. Xadoman wrote: With enough energy it is possible to boil oceans You don't have enough energy. Xadoman wrote: and keep them up in the atmosphere. Oceans aren't up in the atmosphere. They are denser than air. Xadoman wrote: It is simple physics. You are discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure would be 270 bars and surface temperature of earth would be problably more then Venus which has an atmospheric pressure about 90 bars. Argument from randU fallacies. The pressure in any atmosphere varies with altitude. Xadoman wrote: Oceans don't just rise into the air. With enough energy they would. Simple physics. No ocean just rises into the air. Oceans are denser than air. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Higher temperatures mean thinner air, since like any collections of gas, it expands. This is why aircraft if more difficulty flying on hot days. Irrelevant. It is completely relevant. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: You are talking about convection. Nope. I am talking about hot air. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of the atmosphere of Venus is much much higher and the surface pressure is about 90 bars compared to 1 bar on earth. By your logic the atmosphere of Venuc should be very thin. It is however very thick and hot. Arguments from randU fallacy. The pressure in the atmosphere varies with altitude. That's true on Venus as well as Earth. Xadoman wrote: You can't raise the temperature of the oceans. With enough energy everything is possible. Simple physics. Xadoman wrote: [quote]Nope. Hot air is thinner. It is why aircraft have more difficulty flying on a hot day. Venus proves you wrong. Not at all. Venus has some areas of atmosphere that are hotter than others, and that air is thinner. Xadoman wrote: Venus has very hot atmosphere and the surface pressure is about 90 bars. It is 90 times more than on Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. The pressure in an atmosphere varies with altitude. Xadoman wrote: How do you know? I belive the earth has been cooling for billions of years. Ah. So you have this religion. Xadoman wrote: In the beginning the surface was molten, then the surface hardened, at some point oceans started to rain down, ice formed on the poles etc etc. The atmosphere gets thinner and colder as the earth cools down. I already know the scripture of your religion. Xadoman wrote: Common sense, nothing more. Pretty much every religion says that about themselves. Xadoman wrote: Oceans aren't up in the sky. Water is denser than gas. With enough energy we could make the oceans gas again. Simple physics. They wouldn't be oceans. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: The oceans cannot rain down At some point in history the earth cooled to a state that water started to condense on the surface. As the earth continued to cool the amount of water that had been condensed started to rise. At some point there was so much water that the oceans formed. Obviously you don't know what a cloud is. Hint: It is not a gas. Xadoman wrote: Cooler air is thicker. Venus proves you wrong. 90 bars vs 1 bar. Not even close. Attempted proof by false equivalence. Xadoman wrote: An atmosphere is not caused by temperature. It is caused by gravity and mass. There is no atmosphere without energy. All mass has temperature. Xadoman wrote: Gases need energy to exist. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Without energy the gases would collapse on the surface of the planet. Matter can not levitate in the gravitational field of a planet without energy. Simple physics and common sense. Without energy there is no surface. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Venus is so hot because it's closer to the Sun. It is because Venus has incredible hot molten core and the crust is thinner than on earth. The thickness of the crust of Venus is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: This causes the surface of the Venus to be incredibly hot which also makes the atmosphere to be incredibly hot and thick. No, the SUN causes the surface of Venus to be extremely hot. Xadoman wrote: Sun is not enough for that. It is. That's all there is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: Earth gets 1300w/m2 and Venus gets 2600w/m2. Argument from randU fallacies. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. Neither can be measured. Xadoman wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. The mass of atmosphere is estimated roughly. The mass of the oceans is also estimated roughly. Does not have to precise approximation. Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy. Xadoman wrote: It is estimated roughly that the mass of oceans is about 250-270 times of the mass of the atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Venus is hotter because it's closer to the Sun. Already explained. The sun is not enough. It is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Attempted proof by inversion. IbdaMann needs to understand his mistake. He didn't make one. Xadoman wrote: He thinks that the pressure from atmospheric gases could make the surface of the planet very hot. Nope. Only the Sun can do that. Venus is closer to the Sun. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: He thinks Venus is very hot because the atmospheric pressure is very hihg and that causes the surface to be very hot. Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: He needs to understand that the atmosphere is the effect and the cause is the temperature of the planet Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: which is caused by the incredibly hot molten inside of the Venus and thin crust. The thickness of the crust of Venus is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The Sun also adds energy to the Venus but only 2600W/m2. The emissivity of Venus is unknown and can't be measured. Argument from randU fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-12-2024 11:45
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	Venus gets at best 2600w/m2( assuming emissivity is 1, which is not) and the surface is radiating arund 17000w/m2. The surface is so hot that the lead would melt. So as you can see according to Boltzmann the Venus radiates more than it receives. Both IbdaMann and ITN have turned to warmazombies thinking that atmospheric pressure could cause this. They basically admit that atmospheric gases cause the surface of the Venus to be incredibly hot. On the other hand they say they do not belive in global warming due to adding gases into the atmosphere. Basically they argue at both sides of the paradox now. This is not rational at all although IbdaMann thinks he is a rational guy. IbdaMann, stop being gullible by believing that atmospheric gases can heat up the surface of the planet by atmospheric pressure. Edited on 11-12-2024 11:59
11-12-2024 16:24
Swan★★★★★ (6003)	Into the Night wrote: Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere is touching the ground, idiot. False equivalency fallacy. Gases are not solids. I never said gases were solids, moron. Pay attention. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of the gas keeps it floating up in the air. Without temperature the gas molecules would rain down with acceleration 9.8m/s2. Nope. All masses have a temperature. Xadoman wrote: The presence of a gas is not energy. Gases need energy to exist. Without energy there is no gas. All mass has a temperature. Xadoman wrote: Gas is not a solid. Then stop saying like they are. Gas molecules only float in the atmosphere because of the energy. Without energy they would collapse on the ground. All mass has a temperature. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Just gravity and mass. There is no such thing as mass without a temperature. Irrelevant. Temperatures vary. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: Atmosphere thickness and temperature are caused by the temperature of the planet. Hot earth has thicker atmosphere. Cold earth has thinner atmosphere. Very hot earth has very thick atmosphere. Very cold earth has very thin atmosphere. Nope. Hot air is thinner. It's why aircraft have trouble flying on hot days. Xadoman wrote: Simple themodynamics. You are discussing thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: It is not possible to boil the oceans. It is. Nope. You don't have enough energy. Xadoman wrote: With enough energy it is possible to boil oceans You don't have enough energy. Xadoman wrote: and keep them up in the atmosphere. Oceans aren't up in the atmosphere. They are denser than air. Xadoman wrote: It is simple physics. You are discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure would be 270 bars and surface temperature of earth would be problably more then Venus which has an atmospheric pressure about 90 bars. Argument from randU fallacies. The pressure in any atmosphere varies with altitude. Xadoman wrote: Oceans don't just rise into the air. With enough energy they would. Simple physics. No ocean just rises into the air. Oceans are denser than air. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Higher temperatures mean thinner air, since like any collections of gas, it expands. This is why aircraft if more difficulty flying on hot days. Irrelevant. It is completely relevant. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: You are talking about convection. Nope. I am talking about hot air. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of the atmosphere of Venus is much much higher and the surface pressure is about 90 bars compared to 1 bar on earth. By your logic the atmosphere of Venuc should be very thin. It is however very thick and hot. Arguments from randU fallacy. The pressure in the atmosphere varies with altitude. That's true on Venus as well as Earth. Xadoman wrote: You can't raise the temperature of the oceans. With enough energy everything is possible. Simple physics. Xadoman wrote: [quote]Nope. Hot air is thinner. It is why aircraft have more difficulty flying on a hot day. Venus proves you wrong. Not at all. Venus has some areas of atmosphere that are hotter than others, and that air is thinner. Xadoman wrote: Venus has very hot atmosphere and the surface pressure is about 90 bars. It is 90 times more than on Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. The pressure in an atmosphere varies with altitude. Xadoman wrote: How do you know? I belive the earth has been cooling for billions of years. Ah. So you have this religion. Xadoman wrote: In the beginning the surface was molten, then the surface hardened, at some point oceans started to rain down, ice formed on the poles etc etc. The atmosphere gets thinner and colder as the earth cools down. I already know the scripture of your religion. Xadoman wrote: Common sense, nothing more. Pretty much every religion says that about themselves. Xadoman wrote: Oceans aren't up in the sky. Water is denser than gas. With enough energy we could make the oceans gas again. Simple physics. They wouldn't be oceans. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: The oceans cannot rain down At some point in history the earth cooled to a state that water started to condense on the surface. As the earth continued to cool the amount of water that had been condensed started to rise. At some point there was so much water that the oceans formed. Obviously you don't know what a cloud is. Hint: It is not a gas. Xadoman wrote: Cooler air is thicker. Venus proves you wrong. 90 bars vs 1 bar. Not even close. Attempted proof by false equivalence. Xadoman wrote: An atmosphere is not caused by temperature. It is caused by gravity and mass. There is no atmosphere without energy. All mass has temperature. Xadoman wrote: Gases need energy to exist. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Without energy the gases would collapse on the surface of the planet. Matter can not levitate in the gravitational field of a planet without energy. Simple physics and common sense. Without energy there is no surface. You are not discussing physics. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Venus is so hot because it's closer to the Sun. It is because Venus has incredible hot molten core and the crust is thinner than on earth. The thickness of the crust of Venus is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: This causes the surface of the Venus to be incredibly hot which also makes the atmosphere to be incredibly hot and thick. No, the SUN causes the surface of Venus to be extremely hot. Xadoman wrote: Sun is not enough for that. It is. That's all there is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: Earth gets 1300w/m2 and Venus gets 2600w/m2. Argument from randU fallacies. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. Neither can be measured. Xadoman wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. The mass of atmosphere is estimated roughly. The mass of the oceans is also estimated roughly. Does not have to precise approximation. Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy. Xadoman wrote: It is estimated roughly that the mass of oceans is about 250-270 times of the mass of the atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Venus is hotter because it's closer to the Sun. Already explained. The sun is not enough. It is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Attempted proof by inversion. IbdaMann needs to understand his mistake. He didn't make one. Xadoman wrote: He thinks that the pressure from atmospheric gases could make the surface of the planet very hot. Nope. Only the Sun can do that. Venus is closer to the Sun. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: He thinks Venus is very hot because the atmospheric pressure is very hihg and that causes the surface to be very hot. Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: He needs to understand that the atmosphere is the effect and the cause is the temperature of the planet Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: which is caused by the incredibly hot molten inside of the Venus and thin crust. The thickness of the crust of Venus is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The Sun also adds energy to the Venus but only 2600W/m2. The emissivity of Venus is unknown and can't be measured. Argument from randU fallacy. Please inject your Thorazine now IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
12-12-2024 00:02
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	It is. That's all there is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Inversion fallacy. It is IbdaMann (also you if you continue to support IbdaMann) who believes that atmospheric pressure( the mere amount of atmosphere, like he says) is causing the temperature of the surface to be hot. But let me qoute his exact wording again: When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does As you can see IbdaMann supports the view that pumping gases into the atmosphere has the effect on the temperature. This makes him a warmazombie. As I have explained he simply has made a physics mistake. He has mixed cause and effect. The high temperature of the Venus surface is the cause of the thick and hot atmosphere of the Venus and the high atmospheric pressure at the surface. More energy means more molecules will outgass from the surface. It is simple as that. Edited on 12-12-2024 00:02
12-12-2024 01:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: It is. That's all there is. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Inversion fallacy. Random phrase. Fallacy fallacy. No apparent coherency. Xadoman wrote: It is IbdaMann (also you if you continue to support IbdaMann) who believes that atmospheric pressure( the mere amount of atmosphere, like he says) is causing the temperature of the surface to be hot. Mantra 30a. Don't put words in people's mouths. The Sun makes Venus hot. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Xadoman wrote: But let me qoute his exact wording again: [quote]When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does Taking stuff out of context won't work. Xadoman wrote: As you can see IbdaMann supports the view that pumping gases into the atmosphere has the effect on the temperature. This makes him a warmazombie. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 30a. Lame. Xadoman wrote: As I have explained he simply has made a physics mistake. He has mixed cause and effect. Mantra 30a. Lame. Xadoman wrote: The high temperature of the Venus surface is the cause of the thick and hot atmosphere of the Venus and the high atmospheric pressure at the surface. Nope. Just the Sun. Xadoman wrote: More energy means more molecules will outgass from the surface. It is simple as that. Nope. That's determined by gravity and mass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-12-2024 09:01
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	Mantra 30a. Don't put words in people's mouths. The Sun makes Venus hot. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. IbdaMann`s quote is here for everyone to see: When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does He says that the sheer quantity of atmosphere does have bearing on temperature. He is the one who creates energyout of nothing and igonores the 1st law of thermodynamics. aking stuff out of context won't work. His words are wrong in any context. The quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 30a. Lame. I agree, IbdaMann is wrong. The sheer quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature of the planet or have an effect on it. Nope. Just the Sun Not possible. It gets 2600w/m2 from the sun but emits 18000w/2 from the surface according to Boltzmann. Warmazombies explaine this by runaway greenhouse effect. IbdaMann explaines this by "sheer quantity of atmosphere". Both say that the cause of the temperature is the atmosphere. As you can see, IbdaMann is also a warmazombie. Nope. That's determined by gravity and mass. Nope. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. More energy, more atmosphere outgases from the planet. Earth at 0 Kelvin still has gravity and mass but zero atmosphere. Earth with 500 degree celsius surface has very thick and hot atmosphere. The oceans would be up in the sky. The atmospheric pressure would be very high, at least 270 bars , maybe more. Between 0-500 degrees there are millions and millions of different atmospheric conditions. For example if half of the oceans are up in the sky the atmospheric pressure would be around 135 bars. The atmosphere would be half as thick as it would be if all the oceans would be up in the sky. Edited on 12-12-2024 09:07
14-12-2024 06:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Don't put words in people's mouths. The Sun makes Venus hot. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. IbdaMann`s quote is here for everyone to see: When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does He is correct. Xadoman wrote: He says that the sheer quantity of atmosphere does have bearing on temperature. It does. Xadoman wrote: He is the one who creates energyout of nothing and igonores the 1st law of thermodynamics. He is not attempting to create energy. He is not attempting add energy to Venus at all. Xadoman wrote: [quote]Taking stuff out of context won't work. His words are wrong in any context. Contextomy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature. It isn't. It does have a bearing on the temperature though, just like Earth. Xadoman wrote: You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 30a. Lame. I agree, IbdaMann is wrong. He isn't wrong. You are making a contextomy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The sheer quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature of the planet or have an effect on it. Any atmosphere has a bearing on the temperature at the surface of the planet or moon. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Just the Sun Not possible. It gets 2600w/m2 from the sun but emits 18000w/2 from the surface according to Boltzmann. Argument from randU fallacies. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. You are also denying quantum mechanics. Xadoman wrote: Warmazombies explaine this by runaway greenhouse effect. A bearing on a temperature is not 'greenhouse effect'. There is no such thing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth or any other planet or moon. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann explaines this by "sheer quantity of atmosphere". He is correct. Xadoman wrote: Both say that the cause of the temperature is the atmosphere. Nope. The Church of Global Warming attempts to create energy out of nothing. IBdaMann (and I) do recognize that an atmosphere does have a bearing on the temperature at the surface. That is NOT ADDING ENERGY AT ALL! Xadoman wrote: As you can see, IbdaMann is also a warmazombie. Nope. Contextomy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Nope. That's determined by gravity and mass. Nope. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. More energy, more atmosphere outgases from the planet. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Earth at 0 Kelvin still has gravity and mass but zero atmosphere. At 0 degK, Earth would not exist. Xadoman wrote: Earth with 500 degree celsius surface has very thick and hot atmosphere. The oceans would be up in the sky. At 500 degC, there would be no oceans. [quote]Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure would be very high, at least 270 bars , maybe more. Nope. You cannot create mass out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: Between 0-500 degrees there are millions and millions of different atmospheric conditions. For example if half of the oceans are up in the sky the atmospheric pressure would be around 135 bars. The atmosphere would be half as thick as it would be if all the oceans would be up in the sky. Oceans cannot be up in the sky. Liquids are denser than gas. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-12-2024 20:13
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	With just enough energy it is possible to make oceans gas again. Simple physics. The temperature of earth must be very hot to achieve this. IbdaMann however thinks that the cause of the hot earth would be thick atmosphere which puts high pressure against the earth surface. Actually the cause would be hot surface which would cause more water to gas up into the sky. High atmospheric pressure would be an effect of this high surface temperature. In other words - atmospheric pressure does not make the surface hot. Simple physics and common sense. The emissivity of Venus is irrelevant. I have already assumed the emissivity is 1. The Venus absorbs 2600w/m2 and emits 18000w/m2. This can not be explained by emissivity or quantum mechanics buzzwords. It is a simple math that shows that the sun is not enough to cause incredibly hot surface temperature of Venus and incredibly hot and thick atmosphere of Venus. The Venus simply has very high internal energy which heats up the surface of the Venus to a degree that the lead would melt. This incredibly hot surface also causes incredibly high concentrations of gases to rise up in the sky and cause the atmosphere of the Venus to be incredibly hot and thick. All is very simple and common sense. No Einstein, no time travel, no quantum mechanics. Simple math and reasoning , nothing more. IbdaMann has been proven wrong. ITN`s desperate tries to weasel his buddy out of it only makes their ship sink quicker and quicker. It is over , boys. Accept the truth and lets move on. Edited on 14-12-2024 20:16
15-12-2024 05:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	Xadoman wrote: With just enough energy it is possible to make oceans gas again. Simple physics. A vacuum will do nicely as well. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of earth must be very hot to achieve this. ... or thjere must be a vacuum. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann however thinks that the cause of the hot earth would be thick atmosphere which puts high pressure against the earth surface. This is assuming a sun. Xadoman wrote: The emissivity of Venus is irrelevant. I have already assumed the emissivity is 1. ... which it isn't. Xadoman wrote: The Venus absorbs 2600w/m2 You don't know this. Nobody knows this. Xadoman wrote: and emits 18000w/m2. This violates block body science. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 Xadoman wrote:The Venus simply has very high internal energy which heats up the surface of the Venus to a degree that the lead would melt. You are raving. Pro Tip: Increasing the temperature of a gas does not increase the density of the gas.
15-12-2024 07:28
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3056)	IBdaMann wrote: Pro Tip: Increasing the temperature of a gas does not increase the density of the gas. Excellent point! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
15-12-2024 11:28
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	A vacuum will do nicely as well. We have vacuum in space. The oceans are not gaseous. Why? Because there is not enough energy for them to be gaseous. or there must be a vacuum. The Earth is in vacuum. This is assuming a sun. The sun and planet`s internal energy will determine the temperature of the planet which determines the conditions of the atmosphere. More temperature means more atmosphere. The atmosphere by itselt can not cause the temperature of the planet. Atmospheric pressure is an effect. The temperature of the earth is the cause. You don't know this. Nobody knows this. We know how much insolation the earth gets and we know the distances of the planets from the sun. It is very easy to calculate the solar insolation of Venus. It is about 2 times higher compared to earth. The Earth gets about 1300 w/m2 and Venus gets about 2600W. This violates block body science. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 Here are the calculations: T=774K ( surface temperature of Venus ) Sefan Boltzmann constant=5.670/100000000 E=774x774x774x744x5.670/100000000=20349.1794491 W/m2 which it isn't. Does not matter much. You are raving. Pro Tip: Increasing the temperature of a gas does not increase the density of the gas. You are talking about a closed container containing fixed amount of gas. I am talking about the planet which has a hugh amount of matter which could end up in gaseous state if the temperature of earth would rise. For example oceans could be vaporized with just enough energy and the atmosphere would get much much thicker. About 270 times thicker because the oceans mass compared to current atmosphere mass is about 270 higher. If all of this water mass would end up in the sky then the atmospheric pressure would rise about 270 times. Instead on 1 bar we would have an atmospheric pressure about 270 bars. Imagine that. All very simple physics and common sense. No Einstein, no quantum physics fairytales. Only simple math and common sense.
15-12-2024 11:50
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	Excellent point! He just tries to weasel out of his mistake. He talkes about a closed container containing fixed amount of gas. We should talk about planets which have a hugh amount of matter which could become gaseous. For example we have a hugh amount of water currently in liquid and solid state. We could in theory with enough energy to vaorize oceans and ice caps and keep this water in the atmosphere in gaseous state. The atmospheric pressure would then be 270 bars. Imagine that. As you can see it is all about energy. If you for example have a closed container of mixed gas and put it in the space into the shadow (-273 degrees) then the gas would start to rapidly cool and the internal pressure of the container would start to fall quickly. At some point the water vapour would just condense on the walls. At some point ice would start to form from the water vapour. At some point CO2 and other gases would start to rain down as solids. Eventually there will be no gas in the container. All the gases would turn into solid and cause no gas pressure. There simply would be no gas anymore. Then take the container out of shadow and give it energy. The ice would melt and the gas pressure would start to form again. It is all about energy. Energy( temperature) makes gases. Simple as that.
15-12-2024 22:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: A vacuum will do nicely as well. We have vacuum in space. Hence, we have an atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: The oceans are not gaseous. Why? Because there is not enough energy for them to be gaseous. This part is correct. Xadoman wrote: or there must be a vacuum. The Earth is in vacuum. Hence, Earth has an atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: This is assuming a sun. The sun and planet`s internal energy will determine the temperature of the planet which determines the conditions of the atmosphere. More temperature means more atmosphere. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere by itselt can not cause the temperature of the planet. Correct. The atmosphere IS part of a planet. Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure is an effect. The temperature of the earth is the cause. Nope. Just mass and gravity. Xadoman wrote: You don't know this. Nobody knows this. We know how much insolation the earth gets and we know the distances of the planets from the sun. It is very easy to calculate the solar insolation of Venus. It is about 2 times higher compared to earth. The Earth gets about 1300 w/m2 and Venus gets about 2600W. Argument from randU fallacies. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy. Xadoman wrote: This violates block body science. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 Here are the calculations: T=774K ( surface temperature of Venus ) Sefan Boltzmann constant=5.670/100000000 E=774x774x774x744x5.670/100000000=20349.1794491 W/m2 The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate how much light is absorbed. The emissivity of Venus is unknown and cannot be measured. Xadoman wrote: which it isn't. Does not matter much. Yes it does. You cannot just add or remove terms from any equation stemming from a theory of science. Xadoman wrote: You are raving. Pro Tip: Increasing the temperature of a gas does not increase the density of the gas. You are talking about a closed container containing fixed amount of gas. Nope. He's talking about a gas that is not in any container. Xadoman wrote: I am talking about the planet which has a hugh amount of matter which could end up in gaseous state if the temperature of earth would rise. Where is this magick energy coming from? Xadoman wrote: For example oceans could be vaporized with just enough energy and the atmosphere would get much much thicker. About 270 times thicker because the oceans mass compared to current atmosphere mass is about 270 higher. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: If all of this water mass would end up in the sky then the atmospheric pressure would rise about 270 times. Instead on 1 bar we would have an atmospheric pressure about 270 bars. Imagine that. Argument from randU fallacy. Xadoman wrote: All very simple physics and common sense. No Einstein, no quantum physics fairytales. Only simple math and common sense. Random numbers and random equations mean nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-12-2024 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: Excellent point! He just tries to weasel out of his mistake. He made no mistake. Xadoman wrote: He talkes about a closed container containing fixed amount of gas. Mantra 30a. He is not talking about any closed container. Xadoman wrote: We should talk about planets which have a hugh amount of matter which could become gaseous. Water vapor is already in the air of Earth. Xadoman wrote: For example we have a hugh amount of water currently in liquid and solid state. We could in theory with enough energy to vaorize oceans and ice caps and keep this water in the atmosphere in gaseous state. No steam is necessary. Water vapor is already in the air. Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure would then be 270 bars. Imagine that. Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers. Xadoman wrote: As you can see it is all about energy. Nope. Just gravity and mass. That's all you need for an atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: If you for example have a closed container of mixed gas and put it in the space into the shadow (-273 degrees) then the gas would start to rapidly cool and the internal pressure of the container would start to fall quickly. At some point the water vapour would just condense on the walls. At some point ice would start to form from the water vapour. At some point CO2 and other gases would start to rain down as solids. Eventually there will be no gas in the container. All the gases would turn into solid and cause no gas pressure. There simply would be no gas anymore. Matter does not exist at absolute zero. Neither does energy. Xadoman wrote: Then take the container out of shadow and give it energy. The ice would melt and the gas pressure would start to form again. There is always gas, even in a very cold container. The Earth is not a closed container. There is always an atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: It is all about energy. Energy( temperature) makes gases. Simple as that. Temperature is not energy. Energy is measured in joules (or compatible unit). The state of matter is not energy either. Even if you took a closed container of carbon dioxide and chilled it to a liquid state (note you need higher pressure here!), there is STILL gaseous carbon dioxide in the container. Keeping the container sealed and allowing it to reach room temperature makes no difference in the contents or the state of matter in the container. The CO2 is still liquid, with gaseous CO2 filling the rest. Such containers are commonly sold to restaurants, bars, welders, tire shops, etc. Oceans constantly release water vapor. You can't stop it. It can happen on an icy cold night, or in the middle of the noonday in the summer. Ice also release water vapor directly (vaporization of ice). Water can also condense into liquid or ice at altitude (clouds). When the density of the cloud exceeds that of the atmosphere, it begins to rain or snow. It's all about mass and gravity. Humid air is thinner than dry air (all air has some water vapor in it). Hot air is thinner than cold air. Hot, humid air produces the most difficult flying conditions, due to the thinner air. Sometimes it gets to the point that even the birds are walking because it's too much work to fly. Anything about the size of a crow or larger won't bother (unless they absolutely have to in order to get away from something!) because it's too much work. The only notable exception are soaring birds, because they don't need to flap their wings much. They glide on rising currents of air (thermals). Their wings are especially designed for this. When it cools off again in the late afternoon, birds will start flying again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 15-12-2024 23:23
16-12-2024 00:37
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	There is always gas, even in a very cold container. The Earth is not a closed container. There is always an atmosphere. We cooling down. The oceans were up in the sky. Then they rain down. Then ice caps started to form. There is always gas, even in a very cold container. The Earth is not a closed container. There is always an atmosphere. Irrelevant. The pressure at near zero environment would be near zero. The Earth continues to cool until the inner core has cooled down. Then it is all about the sun. Water vapor is already in the air of Earth. Yep, the oceans were up in the sky. Oceans are water. When they were up in the sky they were water vapour. Matter does not exist at absolute zero. Neither does energy. Irrelevant. The Earth at near zero temperature would have a very cold and thin atmosphere with very low atmospheric pressure. Nope. Just gravity and mass. That's all you need for an atmosphere. Nope, energy is needed. The atmospheric pressure in near zero environment would be near zero. There is always gas, even in a very cold container. The Earth is not a closed container. There is always an atmosphere . The atmospheric pressure in near zero environment would be near zero. Humid air is thinner than dry air (all air has some water vapor in it). Hot air is thinner than cold air. Irrelevant. Atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 bars. Venus is much hotter and there is no water in atmosphere. It is not a thin atmosphere. A thin atmosphere can not cause 90 bars surface pressure. Hot, humid air produces the most difficult flying conditions, due to the thinner air. Venus surface pressure of 90 bars debunks your theory . In conclusion, it is about the energy. If we could somehow rise the surface temperature of earth we could make the atmoshere thicker and the atmospheric pressure would rise. More and more gas molecules would end up in the atmosphere causing atmospheric pressure to rise. When the Earth was very young the surface was so hot that it was molten. Water was in gaseous state. Then the Earth started to cool. The surface hardened up. At some point the water started to condense on the surface. The oceans started to form. The CO2 from the atmosphere started to dissolve into the water. The atmospheric pressure constantly went down because gases were removed from the atmosphere. At some point ice caps started to form on the poles. The Earth has been cooling , cools now and continues to cool in the future. When the inside molten core inside the earth cools down, then the Earth`s temperature is only caused by the sun. Until then both internal energy and the sun energy will cause the temperature of earth. All very simple physics. No Einstein, no time dilation, no black holes , dark matter and other mumbo jumbo. Simple common sense, nothing more.
16-12-2024 10:46
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	Daily reminder that the temperature is the driving force for an atmosphere to form: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. IbdaMann and ITN are trying to create energy out of nothing saying that atmospheric pressure has an effect on surface temperature. No no no no no no. The surface temperature has an effect on the atmospheric pressure. Yep, the energy causes the atmospheric pressure. Not the atmospheric pressure causes the energy. Simpleasthat.
16-12-2024 15:00
Swan★★★★★ (6003)	Xadoman wrote: Daily reminder that the temperature is the driving force for an atmosphere to form: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. IbdaMann and ITN are trying to create energy out of nothing saying that atmospheric pressure has an effect on surface temperature. No no no no no no. The surface temperature has an effect on the atmospheric pressure. Yep, the energy causes the atmospheric pressure. Not the atmospheric pressure causes the energy. Simpleasthat. How many astrophysical bodies out of the trillion to the trillionth power have you sampled? IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-12-2024 16:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	Xadoman wrote:IbdaMann and ITN are trying to create energy out of nothing saying that atmospheric pressure has an effect on surface temperature. @Xadoman, have you ever seen a grill press? What effect does one have and why? Is any work being performed? What's going on?
17-12-2024 04:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: We cooling down. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Xadoman wrote: The oceans were up in the sky. Oceans are denser than air. They can't be in the sky. Xadoman wrote: Then they rain down. Oceans don't rain. Xadoman wrote: Irrelevant. The pressure at near zero environment would be near zero. It is not irrelevant. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The Earth continues to cool until the inner core has cooled down. Then it is all about the sun. Yep, the oceans were up in the sky. Oceans can't be up in the sky. Xadoman wrote: Oceans are water. So? Xadoman wrote: When they were up in the sky they were water vapour. Water vapor isn't ocean. Xadoman wrote: Matter does not exist at absolute zero. Neither does energy. Irrelevant. It is completely relevant. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The Earth at near zero temperature would have a very cold and thin atmosphere with very low atmospheric pressure. Nope. The atmosphere is determined by gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Just gravity and mass. That's all you need for an atmosphere. Nope, energy is needed. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure in near zero environment would be near zero. Environment has no unit of measure. There is no such thing as a 'zero environment'. Xadoman wrote: There is always gas, even in a very cold container. The Earth is not a closed container. There is always an atmosphere . The atmospheric pressure in near zero environment would be near zero. Repetition fallacy (chanting). Xadoman wrote: Humid air is thinner than dry air (all air has some water vapor in it). Hot air is thinner than cold air. Irrelevant. It is completely relevant. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 bars. Nope. Atmosphere has no consistent pressure. Xadoman wrote: Venus is much hotter It happens to be closer to Sun. Xadoman wrote: and there is no water in atmosphere. Yes there is. Xadoman wrote: It is not a thin atmosphere. Atmosphere doesn't have a viscosity. Xadoman wrote: A thin atmosphere can not cause 90 bars surface pressure. Sure it can. Xadoman wrote: Hot, humid air produces the most difficult flying conditions, due to the thinner air. Venus surface pressure of 90 bars debunks your theory. It's not a theory. Xadoman wrote: In conclusion, it is about the energy. Nope. No energy required. Just mass and gravity. Xadoman wrote: If we could somehow rise the surface temperature of earth we could make the atmoshere thicker and the atmospheric pressure would rise. Nope. It's determined by gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: More and more gas molecules would end up in the atmosphere causing atmospheric pressure to rise. You can't create mass out of nothing. Xadoman wrote: When the Earth was very young the surface was so hot that it was molten. So? Xadoman wrote: Water was in gaseous state. So? Xadoman wrote: Then the Earth started to cool. The surface hardened up. At some point the water started to condense on the surface. The oceans started to form. So? Xadoman wrote: The CO2 from the atmosphere started to dissolve into the water. So? Xadoman wrote: The atmospheric pressure constantly went down because gases were removed from the atmosphere. Water vapor is not a gas. Xadoman wrote: At some point ice caps started to form on the poles. So? Xadoman wrote: The Earth has been cooling , cools now and continues to cool in the future. When the inside molten core inside the earth cools down, then the Earth`s temperature is only caused by the sun. Until then both internal energy and the sun energy will cause the temperature of earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Rock is actually an excellent thermal insulator. Xadoman wrote: All very simple physics. No Einstein, no time dilation, no black holes , dark matter and other mumbo jumbo. Simple common sense, nothing more. You aren't describing physics. You don't understand it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-12-2024 04:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: Daily reminder that the temperature is the driving force for an atmosphere to form: Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. Energy is not pressure. Yet you say it is. You are ignoring Joule's law. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann and ITN are trying to create energy out of nothing saying that atmospheric pressure has an effect on surface temperature. Mantra 30a. Stop making shit up. Xadoman wrote: No no no no no no. The surface temperature has an effect on the atmospheric pressure. No, it doesn't. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Yep, the energy causes the atmospheric pressure. Not the atmospheric pressure causes the energy. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: Simpleasthat. YOU quoted Joule's law and then you deny it. Make up your mind, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-12-2024 16:25
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	YOU quoted Joule's law and then you deny it. Make up your mind, dude. Inversion fallacy. You and IbdaMann think that atmospheric pressure has an effect on temperature. Here is the Joules law again: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. Here is a water phase diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png As you can see 1 TPa or 10 million bars of pressure can not create water vapour. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. If you want more atmospheric pressure then more energy is needed. Simple as that.
17-12-2024 22:24
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1922)	Xadoman wrote: YOU quoted Joule's law and then you deny it. Make up your mind, dude. Inversion fallacy. You and IbdaMann think that atmospheric pressure has an effect on temperature. Here is the Joules law again: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. Here is a water phase diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png As you can see 1 TPa or 10 million bars of pressure can not create water vapour. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. If you want more atmospheric pressure then more energy is needed. Simple as that. Atmospheric pressure is the only reason I can come up with for the cause of global warming Breathing and burning coal are my 2 biggest examples which create higher atmospheric pressure.
18-12-2024 00:18
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	Atmospheric pressure is the only reason I can come up with for the cause of global warming Breathing and burning coal are my 2 biggest examples which create higher atmospheric pressure. Do not worry. The Earth is cooling down. Burning coal or oil can not make the earth warmer. It only gives energy while burning, after the burning stops the energy stream from the fuel also stops and gases would cool and collapse back on earth, dissolve into the oceans etc etc. One time heat up can not heat up the earth. The energy would rise a temperature for a moment and then the gases would cool and the energy is lost into the space via radiation. There is of course a minuscule heat up from burning fossil fuels due to the additional energy which comes from burning fuel but as said, this energy will be eventually lost into space and the energy to support additional gases in the atmosphere is also lost. It is possible to keep those gases up in the air and to increase atmospheric pressure but for doing that additional continuous raw energy is needed. One time heat up from burning the fuel can not do that. Lets say you burn up a litre of petrol. The exhaust gases are hot but start to cool rapidly. If you want to keep those gases in the atmosphere then you need to give a continuous raw energy stream to keep them there. We do not have this kind of raw energy source to keep more gases in the atmosphere. We have problems to produce even electricity. Historically the earth itself was this energy source when the inner core was bigger and the surface temperature was much higher. The atmosphere was much thicker and hotter.
18-12-2024 00:38
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1922)	Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure is the only reason I can come up with for the cause of global warming Breathing and burning coal are my 2 biggest examples which create higher atmospheric pressure. Do not worry. The Earth is cooling down. Burning coal or oil can not make the earth warmer. It only gives energy while burning, after the burning stops the energy stream from the fuel also stops and gases would cool and collapse back on earth, dissolve into the oceans etc etc. One time heat up can not heat up the earth. The energy would rise a temperature for a moment and then the gases would cool and the energy is lost into the space via radiation. There is of course a minuscule heat up from burning fossil fuels due to the additional energy which comes from burning fuel but as said, this energy will be eventually lost into space and the energy to support additional gases in the atmosphere is also lost. It is possible to keep those gases up in the air and to increase atmospheric pressure but for doing that additional continuous raw energy is needed. One time heat up from burning the fuel can not do that. Lets say you burn up a litre of petrol. The exhaust gases are hot but start to cool rapidly. If you want to keep those gases in the atmosphere then you need to give a continuous raw energy stream to keep them there. We do not have this kind of raw energy source to keep more gases in the atmosphere. We have problems to produce even electricity. Historically the earth itself was this energy source when the inner core was bigger and the surface temperature was much higher. The atmosphere was much thicker and hotter. There is more weight in CO2 added to the atmosphere than there is taken out in O2 from burning coal and breathing. So the pressure increases. The Tunguska blast was over a huge coal mine operation. I assume there were a lot of coal seam fires from that massive mining operation. That blast shows the risk of burning too much coal IMO. Edited on 18-12-2024 00:38
18-12-2024 07:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: YOU quoted Joule's law and then you deny it. Make up your mind, dude. Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. No inversion. You quoted Joule's law and then you denied it. You are locked in paradox. Xadoman wrote: You and IbdaMann think that atmospheric pressure has an effect on temperature. Xadoman wrote: Here is the Joules law again: [quote]Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. You are still locked in this paradox. Xadoman wrote: Here is a water phase diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png As you can see 1 TPa or 10 million bars of pressure can not create water vapour. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. If you want more atmospheric pressure then more energy is needed. Simple as that. Nope. Just gravity and mass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-12-2024 07:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Spongy Iris wrote: Xadoman wrote: YOU quoted Joule's law and then you deny it. Make up your mind, dude. Inversion fallacy. You and IbdaMann think that atmospheric pressure has an effect on temperature. Here is the Joules law again: Joule's second law states that the internal energy of an ideal gas is independent of its volume and pressure, depending only on its temperature. Here is a water phase diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg/700px-Phase_diagram_of_water.svg.png As you can see 1 TPa or 10 million bars of pressure can not create water vapour. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. If you want more atmospheric pressure then more energy is needed. Simple as that. Atmospheric pressure is the only reason I can come up with for the cause of global warming What 'global warming'??? Spongy Iris wrote: Breathing and burning coal are my 2 biggest examples which create higher atmospheric pressure. Burning coal does not create higher atmospheric pressure. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-12-2024 07:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Spongy Iris wrote: Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure is the only reason I can come up with for the cause of global warming Breathing and burning coal are my 2 biggest examples which create higher atmospheric pressure. Do not worry. The Earth is cooling down. Burning coal or oil can not make the earth warmer. It only gives energy while burning, after the burning stops the energy stream from the fuel also stops and gases would cool and collapse back on earth, dissolve into the oceans etc etc. One time heat up can not heat up the earth. The energy would rise a temperature for a moment and then the gases would cool and the energy is lost into the space via radiation. There is of course a minuscule heat up from burning fossil fuels due to the additional energy which comes from burning fuel but as said, this energy will be eventually lost into space and the energy to support additional gases in the atmosphere is also lost. It is possible to keep those gases up in the air and to increase atmospheric pressure but for doing that additional continuous raw energy is needed. One time heat up from burning the fuel can not do that. Lets say you burn up a litre of petrol. The exhaust gases are hot but start to cool rapidly. If you want to keep those gases in the atmosphere then you need to give a continuous raw energy stream to keep them there. We do not have this kind of raw energy source to keep more gases in the atmosphere. We have problems to produce even electricity. Historically the earth itself was this energy source when the inner core was bigger and the surface temperature was much higher. The atmosphere was much thicker and hotter. There is more weight in CO2 added to the atmosphere than there is taken out in O2 from burning coal and breathing. So the pressure increases. Burning coal does not increase atmospheric pressure. Spongy Iris wrote: The Tunguska blast was over a huge coal mine operation. I assume there were a lot of coal seam fires from that massive mining operation. That blast shows the risk of burning too much coal IMO. Wasn't caused by coal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-12-2024 10:09
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	There is more weight in CO2 added to the atmosphere than there is taken out in O2 from burning coal and breathing. So the pressure increases. The Tunguska blast was over a huge coal mine operation. I assume there were a lot of coal seam fires from that massive mining operation. That blast shows the risk of burning too much coal IMO. The exhaust gases from the combustion got energized only once. After the burning is over they will lose their energy and cool down and collapse to the ground and therefore can not make the atmosphere thicker. The atmosphere of the earth is in equilibrium. The Earth gets its energy from the Sun and from the inner core. This energy makes the atmosphere we currently have. This energy determines the temperature of earth and the temperature of atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure. By burning fossil fuels we add a little energy to the Earth and this has a minuscule effect on temperature and on atmospheric pressur. We could calculate the power of such heating if we know the amount of fuels burned in second. Only fuels that are being burned right now at the moment will contribute to the warming. Historical burning does not count because the energy from those combustions has already lost to space. It is analogous to heating your house in winter. You have to add fuel constantly to keep the house warm. It does not count that your great great grandfather in his day already burned fuel each and every day. His contribution does not make your house warmer today. It is also analogous to throwing ball into the air. It rises up and then it falls down again. It can not levitate in the air continuously with just only one throw up. If you want for the ball to levitate in the air continuously then you have to start to throw it again and again and again. You have to start to throw the ball continuously into the air. You are the surface of the earth and the ball is a molecule of the atmosphere. As you can see the ball needs constant energy ( throwing the ball) to stay up in the sky. One time throwing the ball does not make the ball to stay up in the sky forever. Combustion of fuel is like one time throwing the ball up in the sky. It does not matter that your great great grandfather was also throwing this ball up in the sky in his day - if you do not start to throw the ball up in the sky then the ball stays on the ground. Simple as that. Again, our atmosphere depends on continuous energy stream from the Sun and from the inner core. Switch of the sun and inner core and the Earth would start to rapidly cool down loosing its atmospheric pressure very rapidly. For every temperature of earth there exist a certain equilibrium state of atmosphere( temperature and atmospheric pressure) Earth with average surface temperature of 15 degrees has an atmosphere in equilibrium with such a temperature. Earth with average surface temperature of 10 degrees has an atmosphere in equilibrium with such a temperature. Earth with average surface temperature of -10 degrees has an atmosphere in equilibrium with such a temperature. etc etc. No Einstein, time dilation, quantum computers etc etc are needed to understand that the Earth with an average temperature of 0 degrees on the surface and the earth with average temperature of 500 degrees on the surface have completely different kind of atmospheres and atmospheric pressures. Only common sense is needed, simpleasthat.
18-12-2024 10:25
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	You are still locked in this paradox. Inversion fallacy. You and IbdaMann are the ones who thinks that Venus is so hot because it has a high atmospheric pressure of 90 bars. IbdaMann calls this "grill press " effect.
18-12-2024 15:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	Xadoman wrote: You and IbdaMann are the ones who thinks that Venus is so hot because it has a high atmospheric pressure of 90 bars. Incorrect. We have clearly stated that Venus' average planetary equilibrium temperature is due to its proximity to the sun and it's (unknown) emissivity. This is called Stefan-Boltzmann (or Kirchhoff's law, depending on your point of view). The characteristics of the atmosphere determine the temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. I call this the "grill press effect.
19-12-2024 22:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: You and IbdaMann are the ones who thinks that Venus is so hot because it has a high atmospheric pressure of 90 bars. Incorrect. We have clearly stated that Venus' average planetary equilibrium temperature is due to its proximity to the sun and it's (unknown) emissivity. This is called Stefan-Boltzmann (or Kirchhoff's law, depending on your point of view). The characteristics of the atmosphere determine the temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. I call this the "grill press effect. Heh. One way to put it! Venus has no oceans, so the surface of Venus is effectively at the 'bottom of the ocean'. Instead of water, it's atmosphere, which can reach pressures of 1350 psi (similar to what you would experience at the bottom of the ocean on Earth, which is around 1670 psi). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-12-2024 22:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: There is more weight in CO2 added to the atmosphere than there is taken out in O2 from burning coal and breathing. So the pressure increases. The Tunguska blast was over a huge coal mine operation. I assume there were a lot of coal seam fires from that massive mining operation. That blast shows the risk of burning too much coal IMO. It was not a coal mine. Xadoman wrote: The exhaust gases from the combustion got energized only once. Exhaust gases are not energy or 'energized'. Obviously you ignore chemistry. Xadoman wrote: After the burning is over they will lose their energy and cool down and collapse to the ground and therefore can not make the atmosphere thicker. CO2 and CO do not 'collapse to the ground'. They are part of the atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere of the earth is in equilibrium. The Earth gets its energy from the Sun and from the inner core. This energy makes the atmosphere we currently have. Nope. All you need is gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: This energy determines the temperature of earth and the temperature of atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure. Nope. All you need is gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: By burning fossil fuels No such thing. Fossils don't burn. Xadoman wrote: we add a little energy to the Earth No fuel adds energy to Earth. Again, you ignore chemistry and the concept of potential energy. Xadoman wrote: and this has a minuscule effect on temperature and on atmospheric pressur. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: We could calculate the power of such heating if we know the amount of fuels burned in second. Easy. Zero. Fossils don't burn. Xadoman wrote: Only fuels that are being burned right now at the moment will contribute to the warming. What 'warming'??? Xadoman wrote: Historical burning does not count because the energy from those combustions has already lost to space. There is no sequence. Xadoman wrote: Again, our atmosphere depends on continuous energy stream from the Sun and from the inner core. Switch of the sun and inner core and the Earth would start to rapidly cool down loosing its atmospheric pressure very rapidly. Nope. All you need is gravity and mass. Xadoman wrote: No Einstein, time dilation, quantum computers etc etc are needed to understand that the Earth with an average temperature of 0 degrees on the surface and the earth with average temperature of 500 degrees on the surface have completely different kind of atmospheres and atmospheric pressures. Only common sense is needed, simpleasthat. There is no such thing as a 'quantum computer'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-12-2024 22:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: You are still locked in this paradox. Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Xadoman wrote: You and IbdaMann are the ones who thinks that Venus is so hot because it has a high atmospheric pressure of 90 bars. Mantra 30a. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Xadoman wrote: IbdaMann calls this "grill press " effect. Go read his post again. Contextomy fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-12-2024 09:18
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1090)	The characteristics of the atmosphere determine the temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. I call this the "grill press effect. Nope. Kinetic energy determines the temperature. Simple as that. Exhaust gases are not energy or 'energized'. Obviously you ignore chemistry. Gases contain kinetic energy. You try to create gases without energy. CO2 and CO do not 'collapse to the ground'. They are part of the atmosphere. You are trying to create gases and atmosphere without energy. Circular reasoning fallacy- atmospheric gases are caused by the atmosphere. In real life atmospheric gases rise up against gravity because of the kinetic energy. This energy comes from the sun, from inner core . Want more gases up in the sky, rise the temperature of the earth. Nope. All you need is gravity and mass. Still trying to create gases without energy. There is no sequence. Burning one 1kg of coal was like throwing a ball up in the sky once. It comes down and stays on the ground. To keep the ball up in the sky constant raw energy is needed to keep throwing it up into the sky. Nope. Just gravity and mass. Burning fuel rises the temperature of the earth a little bit. It is an additional energy. What 'warming'??? It is an additional energy. Hot spots in big cities are caused by this effect. Simple physic nothing more. Fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy Mantra 30a. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Here is the exact quote again: When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does His words, not mine.
21-12-2024 09:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Xadoman wrote: The characteristics of the atmosphere determine the temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. I call this the "grill press effect. Nope. Kinetic energy determines the temperature. Simple as that. Sorry, throwing a baseball is not a temperature. Xadoman wrote: Exhaust gases are not energy or 'energized'. Obviously you ignore chemistry. Gases contain kinetic energy. You try to create gases without energy. Mantra 30a. You can't throw a gas. Xadoman wrote: CO2 and CO do not 'collapse to the ground'. They are part of the atmosphere. You are trying to create gases and atmosphere without energy. Circular reasoning fallacy- atmospheric gases are caused by the atmosphere. Mantra 30a. Fallacy fallacy. Atmospheric gases ARE the atmosphere. Xadoman wrote: In real life atmospheric gases rise up against gravity because of the kinetic energy. Nope. Because of gravity and mass. Go learn what 'density' means. Xadoman wrote: This energy comes from the sun, from inner core . Irrelevance fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Want more gases up in the sky, rise the temperature of the earth. Not possible. Xadoman wrote: [quote]Nope. All you need is gravity and mass. Still trying to create gases without energy. Mantra 30a. I am not creating anything. Xadoman wrote: There is no sequence. Burning one 1kg of coal was like throwing a ball up in the sky once. It comes down and stays on the ground. To keep the ball up in the sky constant raw energy is needed to keep throwing it up into the sky. Non-sequitur fallacy. Burning coal is not like throwing a ball. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Just gravity and mass. Burning fuel rises the temperature of the earth a little bit. It is an additional energy. Burning fuel does not raise the temperature of Earth. Xadoman wrote: What 'warming'??? It is an additional energy. Hot spots in big cities are caused by this effect. Simple physic nothing more. What 'hot spots'??? Xadoman wrote: Fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy Denial of logic. Mockery. Xadoman wrote: Mantra 30a. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Here is the exact quote again: When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does His words, not mine. And he is correct. I have already described why. You completely ignored it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate IbdaMann physics mistake:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Sleuths of 'spooky' quantum entanglement science win Nobel physics prize for 2022	24	07-10-2022 01:45
Day After Tomorrow defies physics	12	30-03-2022 01:58
Basic Physics	5	09-05-2021 03:37
Physics of climate change question	6	09-02-2020 23:22
All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi	118	06-02-2020 02:09