Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)

New Thermodynamics: Untangling Entropy's Web: Treatise on Global Warming
by Kent Mayhew
Price: $4.95 (Free with KindleUnlimited Subscription)

In various peer reviewed journals, this author has shown that expanding systems perform lost work. That being an irreversible energy transfer from the expanding system into the surrounding atmosphere, as defined by [Wlost=(PdV)atm]. This is really the upward lifting of some of our atmosphere's mass, i.e., an atmospheric potential energy increase. Therefore, no expanding system here on Earth can be considered an isolated system. Since the second law was written for isolated systems, then it does not apply to any useful systems here on Earth's surface, i.e., the second law is a false postulate. Throughout this book, we will not simply bedevil our past, rather we will demonstrate that much of what has been claimed in the guise of entropy and the second law, can be better explained by combining fundamental principles with constructive logic. In so doing, we will clearly show why entropy still lacks clarity, even nearly 170 years after its inception. It will be discussed that statistical ensembles are actually based upon the illusion of elastic collisions, as is witnessed in numerous experimental systems. Accordingly, it will be shown that statistical arguments are secondary to the new logical sequences as presented in this book. It will be further discussed how at its most fundamental level, isothermal entropy change and its numerous associations with accepted thermodynamics, are all enshrined a well-hidden circular argument. New understandings will include kinetic theory, perpetual motion, the ideal gas law, Avogadro's hypothesis, latent heats, solubility, physical chemistry, blackbody radiation and temperature-pressure relationships. For example, a new kinetic theory is presented, one that is a superior fit to known empirical findings. A theory that requires none of the exceptions that traditionally accepted kinetic theory relies upon. This will then lend itself to other new realizations, such as molecular collisions (both inter and intra) are inelastic. Another example, blackbody radiation is theoretically limited to cavities within crystalline substances. Strangely, neither our Sun's radiation, nor molten metal are crystalline, or reside in a cavity, yet both are known to radiate blackbody spectrums. Like so many misunderstandings discussed throughout this book, incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality. A further example being, the above described misunderstanding concerning blackbody radiation has led to the incorrect assertion that homonuclear (N2, O2) do absorb infrared energy, although their heat capacities clearly prove that they do absorb heat. Are we to believe that homonuclear gases only absorb thermal energy when heated, or that infrared energy is not thermal energy? The awkward assertion that homonuclear gases are opaque to thermal radiation has led to absurd misconceptions concerning global warming, that must be addressed if we are to remain on Earth. The above just scratches the surface of what this book reveals to those possessing a fundamental understanding of the sciences. Sadly, the indignity of being wrong may prevent most academics from accepting obvious truths. To which Tolstoy said it best, "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives" Arguably, climate change arguably the biggest issues facing our existence, and therefore, we must get the science right. We no longer have the time to waiting for the screams of human indignity to pass.

Swan wrote:LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

In various peer reviewed journals, this author has shown that expanding systems perform lost work.

That being an irreversible energy transfer from the expanding system into the surrounding atmosphere, as defined by [Wlost=(PdV)atm]. This is really the upward lifting of some of our atmosphere's mass, i.e., an atmospheric potential energy increase.

Therefore, no expanding system here on Earth can be considered an isolated system.

Since the second law was written for isolated systems, ...

then it does not apply to any useful systems here on Earth's surface, i.e., the second law is a false postulate.

Throughout this book, we will not simply bedevil our past

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

Kent Mayhew is selling a book, and he is neither a rain forest nor a river.

What were you thinking?

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.

Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

Swan wrote:
LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL the Amazon is a rain forest and river, neither sells books. Not that anyone cares

Apple is a fruit, that grows on trees...

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.

Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.

Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).

As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.

Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.

Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.

So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.

The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.

incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.

Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?

What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.

If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."

Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.

Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.

You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.

For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).

As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.

Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.

Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.

So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.

The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.

Im a BM wrote:
POP QUIZ

Im a BM wrote:
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

Im a BM wrote:
5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?

Im a BM wrote:
Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

Im a BM wrote:
You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
POP QUIZ

I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Im a BM wrote:
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

Science is not a degree or university.

Im a BM wrote:
5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Im a BM wrote:
Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

Im a BM wrote:
You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.

There isn't any definition for any of these phrases. They are meaningless buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ...

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?
Does it take one to know one?

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

Im a BM wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP QUIZ

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


Answers will vary, depending on who takes the quiz.

DON'T WORRY!

You will still get the final word for the definition of what "science" is.

You will still get the final word for the definition of "climate change", "fossil fuel", or any other term that you determine may or may not have any meaning.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

HOW do I go and learn some science?.

It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science is.

It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Is science therefore a "nothing"?

Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Because you apparently have not learned a damned thing in a whole year.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Probably a good idea.

Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.

Go read up on theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

Correct.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.

Science is not a degree.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Science is not a journal or paper.

Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Science is not a course.

Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

That is all science is. A set of falsifiable theories.

Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Science has no location.

Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Science is not 'experts'.

Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

The theories themselves.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
I see you're back to spread more bitterness.

Science is not 'discoveries', is not a journal or a magazine, is not a citation, is not a book, and does not use consensus.

Science isn't 'contributions'.

Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal.

Science is not a degree or university.

Science is not a course. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning.

Science is not Google. Science is not 'accomplishments'. I do not give out personal information like you do. Don't ask for it.

Science is not a 'legacy'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

________________________________________________________

"Go and learn some science". "You don't even know what science is."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick both wrote these same two sentences repeatedly in response to my first posts, nearly a year ago.

Because you apparently have not learned a damned thing in a whole year.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I need to go and learn some science because I don't even know what science is.

Probably a good idea.

Im a BM wrote:
HOW do I go and learn some science?.

Go read up on theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to read books or magazines, because that is not what science is.

Correct.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't do any good to get advanced degrees in science, because that is not what science
is.

Science is not a degree.

Im a BM wrote:
It won't mean a thing to publish papers in scientific journals because that is not what science is.

Science is not a journal or paper.

Im a BM wrote:
Teaching college science courses is no qualification because that is not what science is.

Science is not a course.

Im a BM wrote:
Is science therefore a "nothing"?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, wait. The world's only true experts in science make it clear.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more."

Okay, that is something, at least.

That is all science is. A set of falsifiable theories.

Im a BM wrote:
Is there a secret place where they keep this set of falsifiable theories, or could someone who needs to go and learn some science find them in the public domain?

Science has no location.

Im a BM wrote:
Can a scientific nobody who never passed a single college level science course become an expert if they locate this holy grail of falsifiable theories?

Science is not 'experts'.

Im a BM wrote:
Please provide a reference for those of us who are too scientifically illiterate to already know everything.

The theories themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.

As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Help me find the theories themselves.

Im a BM wrote:I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find "the theories themselves."

Im a BM wrote:My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers

Im a BM wrote: or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

Im a BM wrote: But, as you have made clear, that is not science.

Im a BM wrote:My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories".

Im a BM wrote:Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

Im a BM wrote:But, as you have made clear, that is not science.

Im a BM wrote:You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon

Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.

Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.

Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.

Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.

Im a BM wrote:
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.

Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.

Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?
Does it take one to know one?

Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?

No thanks. You whine and sniffle about there being no debate, yet you run from any debate, all the while suggesting break out rooms to avoid debate. Too funny!

Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?
Does it take one to know one?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?
Does it take one to know one?

Internet credentials are worth pretty much nothing. But, then again I have trust issues. Mostly, people on the internet tend to live in a fantasy world. Vast majority are projecting a more ideal life, than reality. Either it's a complete fabrication, embellishment, or they omit the unpleasant truth. Some simply in denial, and don't see the truth slapping them in the face. My academics ended with just a two year degree, which I never need for any job. Least I didn't rack up tens of thousands in student loans, had to pay most of it out of pocket. Never really needed to sit in a classroom to learn anything I want though. I'll never claim to be an expert on anything, since I'll only learn what I need to complete a task, or goal. Don't really thing an 'expert' really knows all there is about any field. I really don't have the focus, to keep up with only one field of interest. My interest run in a lot of different directions, not always related.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.

Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.

Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.

Im a BM wrote:
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.

Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.

Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.

If you behaved like this in public you would be arrested for your own safety.

Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Im a BM wrote:
Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Im a BM wrote:
Lying about being the author of my own posts!

Im a BM wrote:
This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Im a BM wrote:
Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

Im a BM wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Im a BM wrote:
Want to hear mine?
...deleted repetition...

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.
Want to hear mine?

No thanks. You whine and sniffle about there being no debate, yet you run from any debate, all the while suggesting break out rooms to avoid debate. Too funny!

Schizzos ...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"You are a liar."

The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have written this sentence to me several dozen times, almost as soon as I began posting.

Apparently, I was lying about knowing anything about science. Lying about having any degrees, about having ever set foot in a lab, about ever having really done anything.

Heck, I was even lying about visiting a damaged coral reef, and they posted photos to prove it.

Lying about being the author of my own posts!

This sleazy ad hominem is the worst way to "debate".

Debunk the lie if that is what is, but don't just make a false accusation to be a disgusting troll.

I notice that nobody is offering any of their own answers to the credibility quiz.

Want to hear mine?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Credibility Quiz

1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research scientist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?

2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied science and technology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied?

3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?

4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?

5. What are the three natural science courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three scientific accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?

7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a scientist?


8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

9. Which three of the presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of climate change?

10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as an expert in science?
If so, how would they know?
Does it take one to know one?

Internet credentials are worth pretty much nothing. But, then again I have trust issues. Mostly, people on the internet tend to live in a fantasy world. Vast majority are projecting a more ideal life, than reality. Either it's a complete fabrication, embellishment, or they omit the unpleasant truth. Some simply in denial, and don't see the truth slapping them in the face. My academics ended with just a two year degree, which I never need for any job. Least I didn't rack up tens of thousands in student loans, had to pay most of it out of pocket. Never really needed to sit in a classroom to learn anything I want though. I'll never claim to be an expert on anything, since I'll only learn what I need to complete a task, or goal. Don't really thing an 'expert' really knows all there is about any field. I really don't have the focus, to keep up with only one field of interest. My interest run in a lot of different directions, not always related.

Hey simpleton, you are actually on the internet at the moment, so stop mocking yourself

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am asking you to walk me through the hard stuff and teach me how to find
"the theories themselves."

No, you have to do your own footwork. You can learn about some of them here, and I have already presented some of them (as have others), but you have to do your own footwork.

Im a BM wrote:
My first instinct would be to look to peer reviewed papers or scientific textbooks for the falsifiable theories themselves.

You won't find it in 'peer reviewed papers'. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a book.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Therefore, it couldn't be any of the falsifiable theories that define what science is.

The test of any theory is if it's falsifiable. If it is, and the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, it is science.

Im a BM wrote:
My next instinct would be to use an Internet search engine such as Google to see if I could find anything under "falsifiable theories". Or maybe more specifically, "falsifiable theories about climate change".

There are no falsifiable theories about a buzzword. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as you have made clear, that is not science. Google couldn't be where to find falsifiable theories.

Google is a search engine. No theories there.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm at a loss and hoping you can walk me through the hard stuff about falsifiable theories.

Already did. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
You presented a (falsifiable theory?) about deep-crust formation of petroleum from abiotic chemical reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Yes. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process.

Im a BM wrote:
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.

Not the Fischer-Tropsche process. The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.

Im a BM wrote:
As I understood the falsifiable theory, petroleum does not form from organic carbon originally generated by photosynthesis. Rather, it forms from inorganic carbon (CO2) reacting with hydrogen deep in the earth's crust.

Carbon is simply carbon. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. Carbon is an element.

Im a BM wrote:
Please guide me to the theory itself. If it's not in the journals, textbooks, or Internet search engines, where is it?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
If you prefer to teach with another example, as a ground water chemist, I am very curious to find the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Sulfate cannot be reduced." How do I find the theory itself?

You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."

Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
Help me find the theories themselves.

RQAA.

If you behaved like this in public you would be arrested for your own safety.

Under what authority? What do you consider 'safety'?