| 22-01-2020 02:52 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.
Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.
If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.
Have a great day.
.
I'm not going to have a great day communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the scientific method right. Neary an example of how I didn't get thescientific method right. I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last Poisoned Science. Poison Science may be reviewed at my website Address below:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Look, my arguments are not mere word games. In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac. A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
Amazon Poisoned Science page: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1533645086/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
They're not going to understand a word that you said. I think being realistic about it is that the difference between an electron and a positron is it's spin. All that suggests is that it's polarization is reversed so it is "anti" rather than an opposing behavior.
I have to disagree with you on "quark theory". All this is in basic terms, 11 (proton) or 12 (neutron) electrons in tight formation which create a strong nuclear field around them. And I assume that the weak nuclear field is the shell of the nuclei.
This then would suggest that when the electrons (quarks) change states relative to the strong nuclear field and it's electron(s) then it's emissions will change. An example of this is absorption bands in the emission spectra of an atom. When the electrons (quarks) move closer to each other they absorbed background electromagnetic radiation. They then emit this extra energy as their orbit around the center of the nuclei increases and as a result, their velocities decrease releasing electromagnetic radiation.
What is your specific issue with the assumption of how an atom works? With me, quantum mechanics is about matter where relativity is about wave energies. 2 different things. I keep them separate and distinct.
p.s., when a proton absorbs an electron, maybe the nuclei gains mass because of it's own internal gravity being increased by the addition of an electron/quark? Just throwing that out there like mass and gravity are related, even on the quantum level.
And with a proton, it's simple, less stable because it has less mass? You could say it might be more "reactive"?
Then again, as I said, these guys won't have a clue what you're talking about. It's nothing personal about them. What you're discussing is very limited in the general population. How do I avoid insulting you or them?
Edited on 22-01-2020 03:11 |
| 22-01-2020 02:55 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.
Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.
If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.
Have a great day.
.
I'm not going to have a great day communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the scientific method right. Neary an example of how I didn't get thescientific method right. I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last Poisoned Science. Poison Science may be reviewed at my website Address below:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Look, my arguments are not mere word games. In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac. A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
Amazon Poisoned Science page: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1533645086/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
They're not going to understand a word that you said. I think being realistic about it is that the difference between an electron and a positron is it's spin. All that suggests is that it's polarization is reversed so it is "anti" rather than an opposing behavior.
I have to disagree with you on "quark theory". All that is in basic terms, 11 (proton) or 12 (neutron) electrons in tight formation which create a strong nuclear field around them. And I assume that the weak nuclear field is the shell of the nuclei.
This then would suggest that when the electrons (quarks) change states relative to the strong nuclear field and it's electron(s) then it's emissions will change. An example of this is absorption bands in the emission spectra of an atom. When the electrons (quarks) move closer to each other they absorbed background electromagnetic radiation. They then emit this extra energy as their orbit around the center of the nuclei increases and as a result, their velocities decrease releasing electromagnetic radiation.
What is your specific issue with the assumption of how an atom works? With me, quantum mechanics is about matter where relativity is about wave energies. 2 different things. I keep them separate and distinct.
p.s., when a proton absorbs an electron, maybe the nuclei gains mass because of it's own internal gravity being increased by the addition of an electron/quark? Just throwing that out there like mass and gravity are related, even on the quantum level.
And with a proton, it's simple, less stable because it has less mass? You could say it might be more "reactive"?
Then again, as I said, these guys won't have a clue what you're talking about. It's nothing personal about them. What you're discussing is very limited in the general population. How do I avoid insulting you or them?
Well James, you seem to have found someone to have a word salad with.
Buzzword fallacies.
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 |
| 22-01-2020 03:08 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
Well James, you seem to have found someone to have a word salad with.
Buzzword fallacies.
ITN, you just defined "buzzword" as I don't understand. I think you missed it. I was explaining to nemo that you guys won't understand a word he said. This is where philosophy has failed you. At some point common ground needs to be found.
And then there is this, "buzznote fallacy";
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIQbadXX74
Edited on 22-01-2020 03:32 |
| 22-01-2020 04:01 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.
Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.
If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.
Have a great day.
.
I'm not going to have a great day communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the scientific method right. Neary an example of how I didn't get thescientific method right. I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last Poisoned Science. Poison Science may be reviewed at my website Address below:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Look, my arguments are not mere word games.
Largely, that's exactly what they are.
nemodawson wrote:
In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac.
A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
...deleted Holy Advertisement...
Word salad. Buzzword fallacies. Cloud chambers do not show proximity of one particle to another. |
| 22-01-2020 04:01 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.
Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.
If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.
Have a great day.
.
I'm not going to have a great day communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the scientific method right. Neary an example of how I didn't get thescientific method right. I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last Poisoned Science. Poison Science may be reviewed at my website Address below:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Look, my arguments are not mere word games.
Largely, that's exactly what they are.
nemodawson wrote:
In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac.
A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
...deleted Holy Advertisement...
Word salad. Buzzword fallacies. Cloud chambers do not show proximity of one particle to another.
What are you saying, idiot? Cloud Chambers identify charge, mass of particles, and X-ray or Gamma radiation bursts. Oh I see, gamma radiation is a particle in your mind, not an energy state which should be documented in a cloud chamber. By the way are you the one who censored the web reference to my book Poisoned Science? I'll give another reference to my own website. You going to censor this also?
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
Edited on 22-01-2020 04:15 |
|
| 22-01-2020 04:15 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
nemo, actual science is up to the challenge. It's not a person but is an understanding that someone realized. And most people who are about science love the challenge.
Edited on 22-01-2020 04:19 |
| 22-01-2020 04:28 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
What some of you won't get is if something is indeterminate.
Definition of indeterminate
1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague
b : not known in advance
c : not leading to a definite end or result
2 : having an infinite number of solutions
different fields in physics/science can get into this. What precisely is something?
Atomic physics can influence atmospheric physics. It's all about conservation of energy.
An example is that at night can gases absorb background electromagnetic radiation and conserve it? Atmospheric sciences aren't this far advanced yet. |
| RE: Another idiot22-01-2020 04:34 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus? |
| 22-01-2020 05:02 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
nemodawson wrote:
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
I think it had to do with Alpha or Beta decay? Maybe it was gamma radiation?
Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
I think this statement of yours clearly demonstrates that mass/gravity of a nuclei doesn't matter. It's rather obvious what you're insinuating. How does a proton gain in mass relative to it's absorption of an electron when it becomes a potron? This is some pretty basic stuff.
If you disagree with mass/gravity/KE having a relationship, please feel free to explain.
If you don't get it, it's the absorption of;
This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron.
It's fücking God damned backwards. It's the "higher state" proton merging of an electron allowing for a lower state neutron. Are you telling me they haven't figured this out yet? This is sad. We're in the 21st Century and we're still working on the basics ?
If you missed it, the increase mass of the nuclei ejected excess quanta. Happy?
The reality is, the mass gained was probably in excess of what a proton could hold so the rest was released during a minor cycle.
nothing personal about the typos, ass and mass are the same thing
@All, sorry for getting what century this is wrong. The 21st is better because.....
And nemo, a neutron has more mass than a proton. While a proton is more excited, it can have more KE., ie., it's moving faster.
This is in some ways far too advanced for this forum. These guys I don't think have any education in nuclear physics. You really shouldn't expect them to know this stuff.
The next step would be discussing subatomic physics, muons, gluons, etc. right?
From what you've said, that's your field. It's not good. That realm doesn't understand the concept of reality. Is that what you're wanting to discuss?
Edited on 22-01-2020 05:14 |
| 22-01-2020 05:07 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14413) |
James___ wrote:
What some of you won't get is if something is indeterminate.
Definition of indeterminate
1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague
b : not known in advance
c : not leading to a definite end or result
2 : having an infinite number of solutions
different fields in physics/science can get into this.
Technically, it's not physics that gets into this. This is math. All casinos hire mathematicians that are experts in this for obvious reasons.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 22-01-2020 05:24 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What some of you won't get is if something is indeterminate.
Definition of indeterminate
1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague
b : not known in advance
c : not leading to a definite end or result
2 : having an infinite number of solutions
different fields in physics/science can get into this.
Technically, it's not physics that gets into this. This is math. All casinos hire mathematicians that are experts in this for obvious reasons.
You're a loser. Did you tell your girlfriend that a hundred other guys would sleep with her? And that 99 of them were probably better lovers?
You did. Why you're a loser. |
| 22-01-2020 05:35 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What some of you won't get is if something is indeterminate.
Definition of indeterminate
1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague
b : not known in advance
c : not leading to a definite end or result
2 : having an infinite number of solutions
different fields in physics/science can get into this.
Technically, it's not physics that gets into this. This is math. All casinos hire mathematicians that are experts in this for obvious reasons.
When your mother had you, did you come out of the wrong hole?
I just can't make sense out of how ignorant your post was. I mean did she close her legs while giving birth to you and now you have brain damage?
Please help me to understand. |
| 22-01-2020 05:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.
Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.
If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.
Have a great day.
.
I'm not going to have a great day communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the scientific method right. Neary an example of how I didn't get thescientific method right. I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last Poisoned Science. Poison Science may be reviewed at my website Address below:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/
I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Look, my arguments are not mere word games.
Largely, that's exactly what they are.
nemodawson wrote:
In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac.
A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
...deleted Holy Advertisement...
Word salad. Buzzword fallacies. Cloud chambers do not show proximity of one particle to another.
What are you saying, idiot? Cloud Chambers identify charge, mass of particles, and X-ray or Gamma radiation bursts. They do not identify charge or mass of particles. The will respond to X rays or gamma radiation.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh I see, gamma radiation is a particle in your mind, It is both a particle and a wave.
tmiddles wrote:
not an energy state which should be documented in a cloud chamber. It is not an energy state.
tmiddles wrote:
By the way are you the one who censored the web reference to my book Poisoned Science?
No. I didn't censor anything. Your post with that link is still there.
tmiddles wrote:
I'll give another reference to my own website. You going to censor this also?
...deleted Holy Advertisement...
I remove advertisements and Holy Links in my responses. Deal with 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 |
| 22-01-2020 05:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
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 |
| 22-01-2020 06:17 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
At the same time gfm7175 could be branner. Unless of course branner is making money off of selling our data. But considering what it takes to get banned, he's your friend, right itn? just as he is with ibdm. And all to **** with the white man.
It's funny how these other guys won't think that a Native American has nothing better to do but life on the res must be pretty slow, right?
Edited on 22-01-2020 06:22 |
|
| 22-01-2020 19:58 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
You seem to be more concerned with the reputation of references rather than the facts references might identify. This might be the problem with the whole discussion; reputation over facts. By the way, talk about word salads, we seem to have a good example in the gobbledygook which tries to make a lower mass particle (proton) ejecting part of its mass (positron) to become a heavier particle (neutron). Words can make the most ludicrous of propositions seem true ala Wittgenstein. |
| 22-01-2020 20:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
You seem to be more concerned with the reputation of references rather than the facts references might identify. This might be the problem with the whole discussion; reputation over facts. By the way, talk about word salads, we seem to have a good example in the gobbledygook which tries to make a lower mass particle (proton) ejecting part of its mass (positron) to become a heavier particle (neutron). Words can make the most ludicrous of propositions seem true ala Wittgenstein.
Word salad. Buzzword fallacy. Try English. It works better.
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 22-01-2020 20:06 |
| 23-01-2020 21:21 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
You seem to be more concerned with the reputation of references rather than the facts references might identify. This might be the problem with the whole discussion; reputation over facts. By the way, talk about word salads, we seem to have a good example in the gobbledygook which tries to make a lower mass particle (proton) ejecting part of its mass (positron) to become a heavier particle (neutron). Words can make the most ludicrous of propositions seem true ala Wittgenstein.
Word salad. Buzzword fallacy. Try English. It works better.
I see, logic doesn't work. Maybe if I try math. 10-1≠11 |
| 23-01-2020 22:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. You can't use it with me, IBdaMann, or gfm7175. None of us accept it as a reference of any kind.
You seem to be more concerned with the reputation of references rather than the facts references might identify. This might be the problem with the whole discussion; reputation over facts. By the way, talk about word salads, we seem to have a good example in the gobbledygook which tries to make a lower mass particle (proton) ejecting part of its mass (positron) to become a heavier particle (neutron). Words can make the most ludicrous of propositions seem true ala Wittgenstein.
Word salad. Buzzword fallacy. Try English. It works better.
I see, logic doesn't work. Maybe if I try math. 10-1≠11
You are not using logic or math.
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 |
| 24-01-2020 00:45 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
nemo, I have things I'm working on and this forum from my perspective is a testing ground. Ideas and opinions are openly challenged. Even in science there isn't always a consensus.
To some people "supersaturated" implies a lot of water in the steam. With the cloud chamber you described it seems to be super heated steam. This is where there are very few water molecules because the heat to pressure ratio basically only allows for vapor which is what you described.
If you didn't understand my implications on the nuclei of an atom, what is an electron/ are electrons representative of? That might be the question. |
| 24-01-2020 01:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
nemo, I have things I'm working on and this forum from my perspective is a testing ground. Ideas and opinions are openly challenged. Even in science there isn't always a consensus.
Consensus is not used in science at all.
James___ wrote:
To some people "supersaturated" implies a lot of water in the steam.
No. It means there is more water vapor in the air than the air can normally hold. It is a temporary condition, caused by the time it takes for water to condense out of the air at the lower temperature.
James___ wrote:
With the cloud chamber you described it seems to be super heated steam.
Nope. They are usually using alcohol, heated, then cooled, leaving the air supersaturated as it cools. Any ionizing radiation passing through the chamber will form clouds in little streaks. You can probably find one at a nearby science museum. Many have them on display. The clouds you see in those are typically caused by cosmic rays.
James___ wrote:
This is where there are very few water molecules because the heat to pressure ratio basically only allows for vapor which is what you described.
Alcohol, not water.
James___ wrote:
If you didn't understand my implications on the nuclei of an atom, what is an electron/ are electrons representative of? That might be the question.
Electrons are not in the nuclei of an atom.
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 24-01-2020 01:29 |
| 24-01-2020 01:42 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
What are cloud chambers? The shell? Most likely. For those who aren't up on such physics, the shell of an atom, what surrounds the nuclei has electrons in it. The Pauli Exclusion Principle determines how electrons exist in the shell. This is actually basic knowledge.
Some layers of the shell allow for more than one electron. Charge dependent.
I'm not sure what nemo is about. He's already stated that mass/gravity has nothing to do with the nuclei of an atom. And he's offered no explanation. This is required.
It's like ITN saying he is an American. American is not Native American. Proof is required.
What are cloud chambers?
A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation. These droplets are visible as a "cloud" track that persist for several seconds while the droplets fall through the vapor. These tracks have characteristic shapes. For example, an alpha particle track is thick and straight, while an electron track is wispy and shows more evidence of deflections by collisions.
From Wikipedia
By the way, where did I say that mass or gravity have nothing to do with the nucleus?
nemo, I have things I'm working on and this forum from my perspective is a testing ground. Ideas and opinions are openly challenged. Even in science there isn't always a consensus.
Consensus is not used in science at all.
James___ wrote:
To some people "supersaturated" implies a lot of water in the steam.
No. It means there is more water vapor in the air than the air can normally hold. It is a temporary condition, caused by the time it takes for water to condense out of the air at the lower temperature.
James___ wrote:
With the cloud chamber you described it seems to be super heated steam.
Nope. They are usually using alcohol, heated, then cooled, leaving the air supersaturated as it cools. Any ionizing radiation passing through the chamber will form clouds in little streaks. You can probably find one at a nearby science museum. Many have them on display. The clouds you see in those are typically caused by cosmic rays.
James___ wrote:
This is where there are very few water molecules because the heat to pressure ratio basically only allows for vapor which is what you described.
Alcohol, not water.
James___ wrote:
If you didn't understand my implications on the nuclei of an atom, what is an electron/ are electrons representative of? That might be the question.
Electrons are not in the nuclei of an atom.
ITN, if I ever want a nice, actually probably a strange "trip", I'll visit you. |
| 24-01-2020 02:18 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Attached image:
Edited on 24-01-2020 02:26 |
| 24-01-2020 02:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
nemodawson wrote:
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Physics isn't mathematics. Mathematics isn't physics.
Physics is a part of science, and as such, consists solely of falsifiable theories. In physics, all of these theories have been formalized into mathematical form.
What are you trying to argue here?
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 24-01-2020 02:32 |
| 24-01-2020 02:38 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
nemodawson wrote:
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Or you don't. I have work to do. And for people like ITN, you can try...... |
| 24-01-2020 02:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Or you don't. I have work to do. And for people like ITN, you can try......
I believe he's trying to direct this at me anyway. I don't see what point he is trying to make yet.
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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:53 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Or you don't. I have work to do. And for people like ITN, you can try......
I believe he's trying to direct this at me anyway. I don't see what point he is trying to make yet.
Atomic physics really has nothing to do with the climate change debate. For something like that to matter he would need to show where the time since the atomic bomb until after nuclear surface testing was stopped was an effect called a "nuclear winter". In this time frame, there was no global warming. He's showed nothing.
For something to relax to, there is this thought;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIQbadXX74 |
| 24-01-2020 06:30 |
nemodawson☆☆☆☆☆
(30) |
Into the Night wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
[img][/img]
Physics isn't mathematics. Mathematics isn't physics.
Physics is a part of science, and as such, consists solely of falsifiable theories. In physics, all of these theories have been formalized into mathematical form.
What are you trying to argue here?
I am trying to say that Physics since the 1960s has deserted authentic experimentation, empiricism, objective data etc. in favor of a reputation based consensus. I started this discussion trying to examine what authentic data and empirically-based theory about the possibility of CO2 being a greenhouse gas. I soon learned that neither data nor supported molecular structure would be considered. The process was quite simple. Anytime I brought up authentic thermal radiation Dynamics, new interpretation of well-established factors and mathematical formulas. A privilege to provide "instant counter interpretations " of known scientific factors was taken as an entitlement. It became obvious that what I had documented in the book "Poisoned Science" was playing out before my very eyes. Therefore, I moved to one of the areas which that book documented had gone from scientific objectivism to subjectivism and consensus determination of the truth. I introduced the field of particle physics. Particle physics was built upon an interpretation of the proton to neutron conversion. The empirical work of Rutherford and Chadwick had identified the neutron as the merging of an electron and a proton with an increase in electron mass during the merger of approximately 2.5 times. A possible explanation of this increase in mass was suggested by Enrico Fermi equation showing a neutrino electron Exchange during proton to neutron conversion. All of this was ignored, however, when quantum mechanics used the Dirac equation to predict a positron emission during proton to neutron conversion. The fact that such a conversion violated the laws governing mass didn't matter. Quark theory was invented to make the impossible seem plausible and which was inconsistent with the measurements which Chadwick had made. When I tried to bring this fact up, showing the mathematics were inconsistent with modern particle theory governing proton to neutron conversion. (see equations above) My mathematical demonstration resulted in comments like:
Physics isn't mathematics. Mathematics isn't physics.
Physics is a part of science, and as such, consists solely of falsifiable theories. In physics, all of these theories have been formalized into mathematical form.
What are you trying to argue here?
Edited on 24-01-2020 06:37 |
| 24-01-2020 06:40 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14413) |
nemodawson wrote: Are your fairytale Physics rejecting 3000 years of Mathematical development? I place the argument in mathematical physics. If this doesn't work, nothing will
You still don't have any point, I see.
Arithmetic is not an argument and it's not a discussion.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 27-01-2020 16:00 |
MarcusR ★☆☆☆☆
(111) |
The basics to the question has already been posted.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
And as far as how much the effect is, see the paper in the first link of the second post here
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/scientific-published-papers-d6-e2983.php
Edited on 27-01-2020 16:01 |
|
| 27-01-2020 17:30 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
MarcusR wrote:
The basics to the question has already been posted.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php
And as far as how much the effect is, see the paper in the first link of the second post here
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/scientific-published-papers-d6-e2983.php
When RF is considered as high as 0.61 w/m^2, that is inconsequential. The source you referenced;
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
The 0.61 w/m^2 is the upper limit at a specific bandwidth.Figure 1 shows at other bandwidths it has a negative GWP. Same with CO2.
What scientists really haven't explained is why is the warmest part of the day 4 ours after the Sun reaches it's zenith? This is actually something that suggests that atmospheric gases conserves heat as heat content.
With that said, there has been little specific research to see if the energy generated and used increases warm air and water currents flowing north. ie., Europe and the US could be warming the Arctic. If so, then that feedback mechanism could be what's influencing weather in the northern hemisphere.
But the focus is on CO2. |
| 27-01-2020 18:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
MarcusR wrote:
The basics to the question has already been posted.
...deleted Holy Link...
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. THESE are the basics, if anything.
MarcusR wrote:
And as far as how much the effect is, see the paper in the first link of the second post here
What 'effect'? Describe this 'effect' without violating any law of physics.
MarcusR wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
Since you just like to cut and paste, I figure you have lost the ability to think for yourself.
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 |
| 27-01-2020 19:29 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
The basics to the question has already been posted.
...deleted Holy Link...
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. THESE are the basics, if anything.
Well son (anyways, that's what your ma told me to call ya), that's rather sophomoric.
Global warming is when specifically the 3rd rock type planet from a G-type dwarf star orbits closer to that star. The 3rd rock type planet outward from the G-type star has a "greenhouse effect" because of it has atmospheric gasses, primarily N2 and O2. These gases agree with Boltzmann's ideal gas law which is
KE = 3/2kT.
What could negate the Stefan-Boltzmann formula you referenced is that planet's gravity. Gravity is the opposing effect of entropy. Gravity attracts matter/energy while entropy opposes stars from gaining mass which they are known to do.
It is possible that the Earth as you call it is gaining mass by absorbing incoming solar IR. Gravity allows for this. Kind of why I disagree with what is stated as the Earth's energy budget.
An example of gravity's attractive force is that any knowledge that enters your cerebrum is never seen again which suggests that black holes do exist.
And as your doctor, I order you to smoke a joint while sitting and not in a motor vehicle (preferably at home but the beach or up in the Cascades will suffice) and relax. Okay?
p.s., this outline creates a set of falsifiable theories. And from this we can consider if these conditions can be influenced.
Edited on 27-01-2020 19:43 |
| 27-01-2020 20:01 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14413) |
James___ wrote: Gravity is the opposing effect of entropy. Gravity attracts matter/energy while entropy opposes stars from gaining mass which they are known to do.
James__, we need to talk.
James___ wrote: It is possible that the Earth as you call it is gaining mass by absorbing incoming solar IR.
The earth absolutely *is* gaining mass by the flow of thermal energy to the sun ... yet it loses mass by radiating thermal radiation. As a point of trivia, Einstein explicitly stated this in a paper he wrote.
E = hv
E = mc^2
hv = mc^2 -> the mass of any given photon = (hv)/(c^2)
This is why gravity "bends" light by pulling on the photon's mass.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 27-01-2020 20:02 |
| 27-01-2020 20:23 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Gravity is the opposing effect of entropy. Gravity attracts matter/energy while entropy opposes stars from gaining mass which they are known to do.
James__, we need to talk.
James___ wrote: It is possible that the Earth as you call it is gaining mass by absorbing incoming solar IR.
The earth absolutely *is* gaining mass by the flow of thermal energy to the sun ... yet it loses mass by radiating thermal radiation. As a point of trivia, Einstein explicitly stated this in a paper he wrote.
E = hv
E = mc^2
hv = mc^2 -> the mass of any given photon = (hv)/(c^2)
This is why gravity "bends" light by pulling on the photon's mass.
.
With what you said, gravity attracts light. What you are suggesting is that a planet attracts more "light" energy than it radiates. And this in turn suggests that the Earth absorbs incoming solar IR unless it is reflected by the surface of the planet. Thank you for proving the point that I was trying to make.
@All, the technical issue with Einstein's experiment demonstrated something, that photons have mass, ie., mc^2 = hν .
It used to be considered in physics that photons had no mass because mass is determined by a particle's "rest" state. That's if they have 0 velocity then a particle is said to be at rest. Rather a technical argument but when including Einstein's work with Planck's, we have a different expression of what energy is.
I'd like to thank IBDM for bringing up this subject.
And IBDM, with the expression that I posted, we can calculate the mass of incoming solar IR. It is that simple.
Edited on 27-01-2020 20:35 |
| 27-01-2020 21:32 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
For anyone who doesn't understand the previous post, light/energy being emitted from the Sun had no influence on light being attracted to it, ie., pushing it away from. It's gravitational attraction is greater than it's emissivity.
IBDM just confirmed this.
To illustrate this point, the sun is gaining mass. One day it will start absorbing the planets orbiting it. How can it be absorbing mass when it's emitting so much energy? Scientists say one day the Sun will be so massive that's it's size will occupy all the way out to where the Earth orbits it. This is because of it's gravity.
Approximately 1.1 billion years from now, the sun will be 10 percent brighter than it is today. This increase in luminosity will also mean an increase in heat energy, one which the Earth's atmosphere will absorb. This will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is similar to what turned Venus into the terrible hothouse it is today.
https://phys.org/news/2016-05-earth-survive-sun-red-giant.html
And yes, I am familiar with astrophysics.
And this brings up an obvious question. If the Sun is gaining mass while emitting energy because of gravity, why would the laws of physics apply to the Earth differently? This confuses me. Gravity in one instance increases mass and then in a similar instance only slows entropy.
Edited on 27-01-2020 22:31 |