Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
09-11-2018 23:08
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?
09-11-2018 23:53
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


I actually have my own work that I'm pursuing. One of the things these guys probably know about me is my concern about the ozone layer. I've posted enough links about how if it became too thin then crop production among other things would become a problem.
I am also aware that it would be a fool that would challenge the IPCC. This means doing anything will probably take a little more work than it should.
10-11-2018 00:25
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


I actually have my own work that I'm pursuing. One of the things these guys probably know about me is my concern about the ozone layer. I've posted enough links about how if it became too thin then crop production among other things would become a problem.
I am also aware that it would be a fool that would challenge the IPCC. This means doing anything will probably take a little more work than it should.


I appreciate and share your concern James. I'm not here to be right, but because I've been authentically concerned. This is the information I needed to help me process this, I wouldn't have got it had I not reached out.

I still think there may be reason for concern and I'm not convinced as of yet that EEP-NOx isn't significant, but as long as our ozone layer continues to heal, this to me is most important.

Thank you for your diligence and debate on the matter

Edited on 10-11-2018 00:27
10-11-2018 00:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


No.

You see, I have a much higher standard for accepting data than you're used to.

I demand not only the data, but the RAW data (or at least access to it). I need to know who collected and when, for what purpose, and by what instrumentation the collection took place. I need to know what reference standards were used to calibrate the instruments and what tolerance they have. I need to know how many instruments were used for the measurement. If a statistical summary is quoted for the data, I need to know the margin of error calculated, the source of variance used, and why. For all data, I need to know the zero reference point and how it's use is justified. A satellite is not an instrument. It is a vehicle. Satellites can only measure light. They are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, pressure, or any chemical concentrations. They only measure light.

In brief, I demand more than the data. I demand to know where and when the data came from, how it is referenced, the completion of the statistical math required, etc. I must have access to the RAW data.

If someone calls data 'science', that's an immediate red flag for me. Data is not science. Neither is the act of gathering it.

I do not consider Wikipedia or any news agency to be a valid source of any data or science. Their use as a reference will automatically be rejected.

For more details on my standards for data, see the first few messages in the Data Mine thread.


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
Edited on 10-11-2018 00:43
10-11-2018 00:28
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Into the Night wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


No.


Hahaha!
10-11-2018 00:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


I actually have my own work that I'm pursuing. One of the things these guys probably know about me is my concern about the ozone layer. I've posted enough links about how if it became too thin then crop production among other things would become a problem.
I am also aware that it would be a fool that would challenge the IPCC. This means doing anything will probably take a little more work than it should.


The IPCC is not science. It is a political organization. It routinely denies science and mathematics.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Would couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to.


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
10-11-2018 01:11
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I think we are both right here in a way just on different time scales. According to that report the does say that there's no statistical trend currently, thus I would stand corrected that the ozone layer may not be currently (1997–2016) depleting. I will concede to this. However according to that same report it is indeed lower than the past, so on longer time scales we can see overall ozone depletion. I think based on this report we can both agree to this yes?


I actually have my own work that I'm pursuing. One of the things these guys probably know about me is my concern about the ozone layer. I've posted enough links about how if it became too thin then crop production among other things would become a problem.
I am also aware that it would be a fool that would challenge the IPCC. This means doing anything will probably take a little more work than it should.


The IPCC is not science. It is a political organization. It routinely denies science and mathematics.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Would couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to.


ЧТО? Я не знаю о тебя. Я вас делаю знать?
Ты знаешь как говорить по Английский?
Я Америйканский! Как о тебя?

Edited on 10-11-2018 01:36
10-11-2018 02:30
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Awww, c'mon man! itn, Mr. Carlson doesn't know that you take happy pills. You take 2 to feel normal, right? And if you take 3 you start feeling pretty good and if you take 4 you get down right stupid. Like you said:
Would couldn't destroy it even if we wanted to.

Can I have some of what you're on? ????

Тогда Я буду написать по Английский, Да?
Edited on 10-11-2018 02:33
10-11-2018 11:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.
10-11-2018 14:38
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.



I've studied quite a bit of physics. Not a problem. If you consider
v = fl they omit mass. If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else. As a result their would be no dispersion. Of course now that they're giving mass to photons which in the past they didn't. That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.
Do you know how ignorant your comments are Tim? If I didn't have a Norwegian accent from starting to learn Norwegian in Norway before learning English in America I could've been smart. As you said, I need to go by what you know and you haven't studied any physics.
My dad became a business manager because he probably heard the same crap from the machinists he worked with.
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything they do. I do have my own ideas that I'm pursuing. If they work you'll hear about it. One's a better solar panel. Might be efficient enough to allow coal fired power plants to reduce emissions while becoming more efficient. It's not in the books, is it? But I live in a coal producing state where the people are like you. Even if that works I'll need to move elsewhere. I shouldn't have to prove I should be allowed to have a life because I have a significant hearing loss.
You have to prove nothing because you're like everyone else around you.
Edited on 10-11-2018 15:27
10-11-2018 15:46
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Mr. Carlson, you might consider going over what I've discussed with Tim. I told him that the field that stratospheric ozone is in is pushing it up. This would explain why the tropopause is - 56° C. and the stratosphere above the ozone layer is 0° C.
If you check the graphs you posted on how much ozone is at different levels it has a higher concentration as altitude increases.
But this proves only that ozone concentrations and temperatures increase with elevation and has heat moving away from a cold layer in our atmosphere.
10-11-2018 16:45
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Tim, since you don't know me, when I was in the US Navy, I went to school for propulsion engineering. Basically I knew my way around an engine room. I was thinking about extending my enlistment and enter the Navy's nuclear program.
A guy from small town Kentucky, USA put his pot pipe under my mattress for it. Even though I didn't use drugs I got busted for it. That disqualified me from the nuclear program.
I got an interest in physics when I read Einstein's autobiography when I was 13. It went into what helped him shape his theory on General Relativity.
What's funny is because I had been sick and had to be hospitalized, I got a very poor grade for the 3rx quarter in Earth Science. During the 4th quarter all I heard from my teacher was that I had to slow down because I was working to fast.
I came close to getting an A average between the 3rd and 4th quarters based solely on my 4th quarter work. And yet my teacher had nothing to say to me. I think he would've liked me better if I got a C out of either A, B, C, D or F which is failing.
10-11-2018 18:02
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
This explains how to calculate the velocity of a satellite. With stratospheric ozone, it might be the same thing but with a stable orbit. This could explain why the ozone layer would seem to be violating the laws of thermal dynamics.
If so, then it would show that gravity's angular potential effects matter in the upper atmosphere. This could also be considered as work being performed.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion

Thought I'd point out the obvious. If that specific math doesn't agree with ozone's orbiting velocity then either that part of the Earth's gravitational field has a different angular potential or gases react differently to the angular potential of gravity. It does need to be considered at what altitude a satellite needs to orbit at to have a stable orbit.
And with the graphs that Mr. Carlson posted showing more ozone away from the tropopause, we could probably calculate it's inertia to see if we can find a relationship between that and it's KE.
Edited on 10-11-2018 18:27
10-11-2018 19:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.



I've studied quite a bit of physics. Not a problem. If you consider
v = fl they omit mass. If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else. As a result their would be no dispersion. Of course now that they're giving mass to photons which in the past they didn't. That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.
Do you know how ignorant your comments are Tim? If I didn't have a Norwegian accent from starting to learn Norwegian in Norway before learning English in America I could've been smart. As you said, I need to go by what you know and you haven't studied any physics.
My dad became a business manager because he probably heard the same crap from the machinists he worked with.
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything they do. I do have my own ideas that I'm pursuing. If they work you'll hear about it. One's a better solar panel. Might be efficient enough to allow coal fired power plants to reduce emissions while becoming more efficient. It's not in the books, is it? But I live in a coal producing state where the people are like you. Even if that works I'll need to move elsewhere. I shouldn't have to prove I should be allowed to have a life because I have a significant hearing loss.
You have to prove nothing because you're like everyone else around you.


Given that the v=fl thing is a test of if you know anything at all about physics and you have yet to shwo that you do how about you show that you do by explaining how the equaision describes waves at sea.

If your sensor is fixed to the leg of an oil rig how does v=fl make any sense?
10-11-2018 19:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
James___ wrote:
This explains how to calculate the velocity of a satellite. With stratospheric ozone, it might be the same thing but with a stable orbit. This could explain why the ozone layer would seem to be violating the laws of thermal dynamics.
If so, then it would show that gravity's angular potential effects matter in the upper atmosphere. This could also be considered as work being performed.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion

Thought I'd point out the obvious. If that specific math doesn't agree with ozone's orbiting velocity then either that part of the Earth's gravitational field has a different angular potential or gases react differently to the angular potential of gravity. It does need to be considered at what altitude a satellite needs to orbit at to have a stable orbit.
And with the graphs that Mr. Carlson posted showing more ozone away from the tropopause, we could probably calculate it's inertia to see if we can find a relationship between that and it's KE.


The ozone layer is not in orbit.

It is part of the atmosphere like the rest of the air. The ground pushing up at the bottom holds up the colum of air.
10-11-2018 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.


Yet you know a heck of a lot more science than he does.

Science isn't mathematics. They are two completely separate things.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Even in your plumbing work, you have used and even created a few of these. You are a scientist, as well as a plumber!

Science is an open functional system. Such systems have no proofs. No theory of science is ever proven True. It remains a theory, and always a theory, until it is falsified. It can be falsified by conflicting evidence, by a proof in mathematics or logic, by thought experiments, by many means. When it IS falsified, that theory is utterly destroyed.

Mathematics is a closed functional system. It is based on a set of axioms that define that system. It cannot operate outside of those axioms. They act like the rules of a game. Change the rules, you are changing the game. You are no longer playing the same game.

Close functional systems have the power of the proof. Along with this power comes the power of prediction. An open functional system cannot predict anything.

Thus, science cannot predict, it can only describe. It must turn to a closed functional system to gain the power of prediction. Usually, it turns to mathematics. This is known as 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

You know many of these laws already. You use them in your plumbing. Laws like F=mA which describe why you put water hammer stubs in plumbing. Inertia can literally rip plumbing apart, as you already know.

Your wind machine is making use of Benoulli's law. It is also making use of F=mA. It is also making use of aerodynamic drag and lift laws. You have already built a prototype to test the concept. That is testing the falsifiability of your design (which comes from a theory of science YOU created!).

The mathematics helps, but is not a required feature of science. Mathematics helps you to create a law (equation) from a theory, giving that theory the power of prediction.

You have taken the risk of building it (yes...it is a risk, at least to your wallet!). You are now searching for investors and marketing types to take the concept further. I have suggested instrumentation you can use to help you verify the concept further (it will always remain a theory).

Yes...you are a scientist. To a certain extent, you are a mathematician too! Algebra is a branch of mathematics that you know how to use effectively.


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
10-11-2018 22:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.



I've studied quite a bit of physics. Not a problem. If you consider
v = fl they omit mass.

The presence of mass makes no difference.
James___ wrote:
If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else.

A 'wave' of zero amplitude is not a wave at all.
James___ wrote:
As a result their would be no dispersion.

Waves are not dispersion.
James___ wrote:
Of course now that they're giving mass to photons which in the past they didn't.

The mass of a photon depends on its speed. It always has. See Einstein's equations.
James___ wrote:
That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.

WRONG. Waves are composed of a frequency (or period), and an amplitude (greater than zero!).
James___ wrote:
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.

I don't think I'll bother to read your books. They obviously deny science.
James___ wrote:
Do you know how ignorant your comments are Tim? If I didn't have a Norwegian accent from starting to learn Norwegian in Norway before learning English in America I could've been smart. As you said, I need to go by what you know and you haven't studied any physics.

He has. He's a plumber.
James___ wrote:
My dad became a business manager because he probably heard the same crap from the machinists he worked with.

So you don't like machinists either, eh?
James___ wrote:
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything they do.

Machining is an art as well as a practice. They constantly find ways to improve their art. You just have no appreciation for what they do.
James___ wrote:
I do have my own ideas that I'm pursuing. If they work you'll hear about it. One's a better solar panel. Might be efficient enough to allow coal fired power plants to reduce emissions while becoming more efficient. It's not in the books, is it? But I live in a coal producing state where the people are like you. Even if that works I'll need to move elsewhere. I shouldn't have to prove I should be allowed to have a life because I have a significant hearing loss.
You have to prove nothing because you're like everyone else around you.

Random statements. What does your living anywhere have to do with anything?


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
10-11-2018 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, you might consider going over what I've discussed with Tim. I told him that the field that stratospheric ozone is in is pushing it up.

There is no such thing as a 'field' pushing anything up.
James___ wrote:
This would explain why the tropopause is - 56° C. and the stratosphere above the ozone layer is 0° C.

The stratosphere isn't above the ozone layer.
James___ wrote:
If you check the graphs you posted on how much ozone is at different levels it has a higher concentration as altitude increases.

WRONG. Ozone concentration decreases with altitude.
James___ wrote:
But this proves only that ozone concentrations and temperatures increase with elevation
WRONG. Ozone concentration decreases with altitude.
[quote]James___ wrote:
and has heat moving away from a cold layer in our atmosphere.

Heat continues outward because energy density is still decreasing, even though temperature is increasing as you rise in altitude in the stratosphere.

It's about energy density, not temperature.


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
10-11-2018 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Tim, since you don't know me, when I was in the US Navy, I went to school for propulsion engineering. Basically I knew my way around an engine room. I was thinking about extending my enlistment and enter the Navy's nuclear program.

I don't believe you.
James___ wrote:
A guy from small town Kentucky, USA put his pot pipe under my mattress for it. Even though I didn't use drugs I got busted for it. That disqualified me from the nuclear program.

I don't believe this story either.
James___ wrote:
I got an interest in physics when I read Einstein's autobiography when I was 13. It went into what helped him shape his theory on General Relativity.

His autobiography did not help him shape his Theory of General Relativity.
James___ wrote:
What's funny is because I had been sick and had to be hospitalized, I got a very poor grade for the 3rx quarter in Earth Science. During the 4th quarter all I heard from my teacher was that I had to slow down because I was working to fast.
I came close to getting an A average between the 3rd and 4th quarters based solely on my 4th quarter work. And yet my teacher had nothing to say to me. I think he would've liked me better if I got a C out of either A, B, C, D or F which is failing.

School grades are essentially meaningless. No one knows what was being taught, the personality and beliefs of the instructor, or the meaning of any boxes the students are put into with any grade.


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
10-11-2018 22:40
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.



I've studied quite a bit of physics. Not a problem. If you consider
v = fl they omit mass. If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else. As a result their would be no dispersion. Of course now that they're giving mass to photons which in the past they didn't. That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.
Do you know how ignorant your comments are Tim? If I didn't have a Norwegian accent from starting to learn Norwegian in Norway before learning English in America I could've been smart. As you said, I need to go by what you know and you haven't studied any physics.
My dad became a business manager because he probably heard the same crap from the machinists he worked with.
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything they do. I do have my own ideas that I'm pursuing. If they work you'll hear about it. One's a better solar panel. Might be efficient enough to allow coal fired power plants to reduce emissions while becoming more efficient. It's not in the books, is it? But I live in a coal producing state where the people are like you. Even if that works I'll need to move elsewhere. I shouldn't have to prove I should be allowed to have a life because I have a significant hearing loss.
You have to prove nothing because you're like everyone else around you.


Given that the v=fl thing is a test of if you know anything at all about physics and you have yet to shwo that you do how about you show that you do by explaining how the equaision describes waves at sea.

If your sensor is fixed to the leg of an oil rig how does v=fl make any sense?


I sailed across 3 oceans on ships. Their wakes would be the most basic explanation possible. But a ship has mass while v = fl doesn't account for that. But considering the wave moving away from a shop would be what you're talking about. I understood that when I was 4 years old.
To be more technical, as the wake moves away from the ship it's wave height become less because the waves become longer. This is too remedial for me, sorry.
10-11-2018 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
This explains how to calculate the velocity of a satellite. With stratospheric ozone, it might be the same thing but with a stable orbit. This could explain why the ozone layer would seem to be violating the laws of thermal dynamics.
...deleted link...

Neither ozone nor the stratosphere is in orbit.
James___ wrote:
If so, then it would show that gravity's angular potential effects matter in the upper atmosphere. This could also be considered as work being performed.

A round planet pulls on a round atmosphere. The atmosphere is a fluid. It changes it's shape to match the Earth. There is no 'angular potential effect'.
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd point out the obvious. If that specific math doesn't agree with ozone's orbiting velocity then either that part of the Earth's gravitational field has a different angular potential or gases react differently to the angular potential of gravity. It does need to be considered at what altitude a satellite needs to orbit at to have a stable orbit.

Any orbit that is free from atmospheric drag is a stable orbit.
James___ wrote:
And with the graphs that Mr. Carlson posted showing more ozone away from the tropopause, we could probably calculate it's inertia to see if we can find a relationship between that and it's KE.

The graph is wrong. Ozone concentration decreases with altitude.


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
10-11-2018 23:53
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
This explains how to calculate the velocity of a satellite. With stratospheric ozone, it might be the same thing but with a stable orbit. This could explain why the ozone layer would seem to be violating the laws of thermal dynamics.
...deleted link...

Neither ozone nor the stratosphere is in orbit.
James___ wrote:
If so, then it would show that gravity's angular potential effects matter in the upper atmosphere. This could also be considered as work being performed.

A round planet pulls on a round atmosphere. The atmosphere is a fluid. It changes it's shape to match the Earth. There is no 'angular potential effect'.
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd point out the obvious. If that specific math doesn't agree with ozone's orbiting velocity then either that part of the Earth's gravitational field has a different angular potential or gases react differently to the angular potential of gravity. It does need to be considered at what altitude a satellite needs to orbit at to have a stable orbit.

Any orbit that is free from atmospheric drag is a stable orbit.
James___ wrote:
And with the graphs that Mr. Carlson posted showing more ozone away from the tropopause, we could probably calculate it's inertia to see if we can find a relationship between that and it's KE.

The graph is wrong. Ozone concentration decreases with altitude.



itn, you need to get back on your happy pills. Are you bipolar?
Your mood swings seems to suggest that.
What your friend overlooked is that any oil rig in the sea would not be a wave. A ship would be because it moves and it's movement relative to any plane changes but it generally follows the same path.
And Tim, came close to being a plumber myself. Brother didn't tell me that a plumbing company called me about an apprentice job I applied for. I think it bothered him that I had qualifications he didn't have.
11-11-2018 20:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,


v=fl has nothing to do with air temperatures. It is the equaision of a wave.

There is no equal but opposite effect in science. There is Newton's second law which covers the effect of force doing the opposite to the thing creating the force but that's it.

If you have no clue don't speak.

You can ask questions but you must take on board the answers.

If you did not do any science at school because you could not cope with it it was because you were thick. Unlucky.

I am a plumber because I could not cope with the maths in a mechanical engineering degree. Unlucky for me.



I've studied quite a bit of physics. Not a problem. If you consider
v = fl they omit mass. If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else. As a result their would be no dispersion. Of course now that they're giving mass to photons which in the past they didn't. That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.
Do you know how ignorant your comments are Tim? If I didn't have a Norwegian accent from starting to learn Norwegian in Norway before learning English in America I could've been smart. As you said, I need to go by what you know and you haven't studied any physics.
My dad became a business manager because he probably heard the same crap from the machinists he worked with.
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything they do. I do have my own ideas that I'm pursuing. If they work you'll hear about it. One's a better solar panel. Might be efficient enough to allow coal fired power plants to reduce emissions while becoming more efficient. It's not in the books, is it? But I live in a coal producing state where the people are like you. Even if that works I'll need to move elsewhere. I shouldn't have to prove I should be allowed to have a life because I have a significant hearing loss.
You have to prove nothing because you're like everyone else around you.


Given that the v=fl thing is a test of if you know anything at all about physics and you have yet to shwo that you do how about you show that you do by explaining how the equaision describes waves at sea.

If your sensor is fixed to the leg of an oil rig how does v=fl make any sense?


I sailed across 3 oceans on ships. Their wakes would be the most basic explanation possible. But a ship has mass while v = fl doesn't account for that. But considering the wave moving away from a shop would be what you're talking about. I understood that when I was 4 years old.
To be more technical, as the wake moves away from the ship it's wave height become less because the waves become longer. This is too remedial for me, sorry.


1, v=fl is for all waves. The wake and the rest of the waves out there on the ocean. It does not describe the amplitude or energy of the wave just the relationship between its' velocity and frequency and wavelength.

2, My point is that if you don't know this stuff there is zero point looking at the next bit of physics up the ladder. You cannot really deal with anything about the amplitude or energy of the wave without the very first remedial understanding.

If you choose to talk about very complex things happening in the very thin air of the upper atmosphere when you have no clue at all about physics you will only look a fool.
12-11-2018 03:54
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Tim, I assume you're aware of the Navier - Stokes equations. I doubt you know what they are. As you said, you're a plumber and one thing they consider is how water moves through a pipe or how waves on a lake or other body of water can be calculated. There's $1 Million in it for you when you give them the answer. Check out
The Millennium Prize Problems

In order to celebrate mathematics in the new millennium, The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) established seven Prize Problems


I've studied physics. Why fault me for speeding my time learning? I'll go with Occam's razor here. You just never saw where you needed to open a book and read it. Not my problem.

Tim, all v = fl is
speed of light = frequency times wavelength.
If you use it to try and calculate a wave on the water it won't work. That's why the Navier - Stokes equations. I have other things I'm pursuing. With v = fl there is no mass. That means it has no force so it cannot have any effect on anything.
Enjoy

Edited on 12-11-2018 04:08
12-11-2018 05:00
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.
12-11-2018 05:04
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.
12-11-2018 05:29
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
James___ wrote:
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.


My impression is that when Tim brought up that equation.. it had nothing at all to do with any part of the conversation at hand, but more a lil test game to sus out who I was or what I might know. So not sure how relevant the equation is, unless we are trying to make it relevant in some way.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "..they omit other details about the wave." Who is they? and what's the context here in which details are or aren't gathered?
Edited on 12-11-2018 05:55
12-11-2018 06:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.


v=fl does not describe dispersion.


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
12-11-2018 15:39
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.


My impression is that when Tim brought up that equation.. it had nothing at all to do with any part of the conversation at hand, but more a lil test game to sus out who I was or what I might know. So not sure how relevant the equation is, unless we are trying to make it relevant in some way.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "..they omit other details about the wave." Who is they? and what's the context here in which details are or aren't gathered?



Mr. Carlson, the main reason I think all v = fl describes a wave is actually 2 reasons. The first is that it's a description of Any wave. Hz x wavelength will always equal c.
The 2nd is that mass is omitted. All calculations for KE includes mass. The example of a ship moving through water, mass of the ship allows for force. This in turn helps to determine resonant frequency. In this aspect think of light passing through a prism.
When you talk about VLFs in the upper atmosphere splintering off into different wavelengths, it might be the same principle at work.
When I say "they", the scientific community is who accepts v = fl
as The Golden Rule for frequency dispersion. And it would be difficult to argue against it.
Edited on 12-11-2018 15:41
12-11-2018 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
This explains how to calculate the velocity of a satellite. With stratospheric ozone, it might be the same thing but with a stable orbit. This could explain why the ozone layer would seem to be violating the laws of thermal dynamics.
...deleted link...

Neither ozone nor the stratosphere is in orbit.
James___ wrote:
If so, then it would show that gravity's angular potential effects matter in the upper atmosphere. This could also be considered as work being performed.

A round planet pulls on a round atmosphere. The atmosphere is a fluid. It changes it's shape to match the Earth. There is no 'angular potential effect'.
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd point out the obvious. If that specific math doesn't agree with ozone's orbiting velocity then either that part of the Earth's gravitational field has a different angular potential or gases react differently to the angular potential of gravity. It does need to be considered at what altitude a satellite needs to orbit at to have a stable orbit.

Any orbit that is free from atmospheric drag is a stable orbit.
James___ wrote:
And with the graphs that Mr. Carlson posted showing more ozone away from the tropopause, we could probably calculate it's inertia to see if we can find a relationship between that and it's KE.

The graph is wrong. Ozone concentration decreases with altitude.



...deleted insult fallacy...
What your friend overlooked is that any oil rig in the sea would not be a wave.

He didn't bring up an oil rig at sea. YOU did, just now.
James___ wrote:
A ship would be because it moves and it's movement relative to any plane changes but it generally follows the same path.

A ship is not a wave either.
James___ wrote:
And Tim, came close to being a plumber myself. Brother didn't tell me that a plumbing company called me about an apprentice job I applied for. I think it bothered him that I had qualifications he didn't have.


I don't believe you.


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
12-11-2018 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Tim, I assume you're aware of the Navier - Stokes equations. I doubt you know what they are. As you said, you're a plumber and one thing they consider is how water moves through a pipe or how waves on a lake or other body of water can be calculated. There's $1 Million in it for you when you give them the answer. Check out
The Millennium Prize Problems

In order to celebrate mathematics in the new millennium, The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) established seven Prize Problems

More random buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
I've studied physics.
Obviously, you have not. It shows.
James___ wrote:
Why fault me for speeding my time learning?
You aren't learning.
James___ wrote:
I'll go with Occam's razor here.
Occam's Razor is not physics.
James___ wrote:
You just never saw where you needed to open a book and read it.
Tim opened the book. He read it.
James___ wrote:
Not my problem.
It is now!
James___ wrote:
Tim, all v = fl is
speed of light = frequency times wavelength.
If you use it to try and calculate a wave on the water it won't work.

WRONG. It works on ALL waves, whether they are water, light, sound, anything.
James___ wrote:
That's why the Navier - Stokes equations.

Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I have other things I'm pursuing.

I don't believe you.
James___ wrote:
With v = fl there is no mass.[quote]James___ wrote:
That means it has no force so it cannot have any effect on anything.

v=fl is not about mass. All waves interacting with matter has mass, even light.


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
12-11-2018 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

Radio waves are not additive. Mode of transmission makes no difference. No cyclotron. No gyro. No ozone depletion.


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
12-11-2018 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.

v=fl is not dispersion. There are no other details about a wave.


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
12-11-2018 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spending time learning

It is possible that with v = fl that they're talking about how a wave whether it's a radio wave or any other type of electromagnetic radiation that the way a wave disperse is the relationship between it's frequency (hz) and it's wavelength.
It's like a broadcast signal, it's frequency and wavelength describes how it's being dispersed from it's transmitter. That could be why they omit other details about the wave.


My impression is that when Tim brought up that equation.. it had nothing at all to do with any part of the conversation at hand, but more a lil test game to sus out who I was or what I might know. So not sure how relevant the equation is, unless we are trying to make it relevant in some way.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "..they omit other details about the wave." Who is they? and what's the context here in which details are or aren't gathered?



Mr. Carlson, the main reason I think all v = fl describes a wave is actually 2 reasons. The first is that it's a description of Any wave. Hz x wavelength will always equal c.

There is no 'c' in the equation.
James___ wrote:
The 2nd is that mass is omitted.
Of course it is. v=fl is not about mass.
James___ wrote:
All calculations for KE includes mass.
Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
The example of a ship moving through water, mass of the ship allows for force. This in turn helps to determine resonant frequency.

No, it doesn't. You don't know the formula for resonant frequency.
James___ wrote:
In this aspect think of light passing through a prism.
No relationship.
James___ wrote:
When you talk about VLFs in the upper atmosphere splintering off into different wavelengths, it might be the same principle at work.
VLF does not 'splinter off' into different wavelength.
James___ wrote:
When I say "they", the scientific community is who accepts v = fl
as The Golden Rule for frequency dispersion.

v=fl has nothing to do with 'frequency dispersion'. There is no such thing as 'frequency dispersion'.
James___ wrote:
And it would be difficult to argue against it.

Just did.


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
12-11-2018 20:46
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Into the Night wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

Radio waves are not additive. Mode of transmission makes no difference. No cyclotron. No gyro. No ozone depletion.


Can you elaborate Into the Night? That is if you want me to take your simple nope at all seriously. You're a smart guy, I get that, but your simple take isn't explaining your point of view adequately for me to really understand you.
12-11-2018 20:48
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?
12-11-2018 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

Radio waves are not additive. Mode of transmission makes no difference. No cyclotron. No gyro. No ozone depletion.


Can you elaborate Into the Night? That is if you want me to take your simple nope at all seriously. You're a smart guy, I get that, but your simple take isn't explaining your point of view adequately for me to really understand you.


You don't want to understand. That's obvious. I have already elaborated, and you rejected it. You prefer to make this as complicated as possible so that your buzzword story will seem to have some merit.


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
12-11-2018 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

No.


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
12-11-2018 21:18
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Into the Night wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just getting back into town after a lil R&R in the woods. It was nice to unplug for a bit.

Just a couple of notes as James was asking about how this broadcast theory jives with the temperature drop in the late 40's - to early 50's

IF and that's a bit IF here.. If AM broadcast used in the gyrofrequency range was stimulating Electron Precipitation, hence ozone depletion and influencing global temperature. The simulation around this frequency causes cyclotron plasma waves to travel from the ionosphere to the polar regions along magnetic field lines where density ducts form in the ionospheric plasma. Though EEP does occur at most any latitude, most of it occurs in the polar regions.

Once we started using higher frequencies to broadcast television.. the electromagnetic energy travels upward through the E layer of the ionosphere, but isn't high enough to couple with or go through the F layer of the ionosphere so it reflects off of it and comes back down on the E layer of the ionosphere at an angle causing what's called 'hybrid wave suppression' along the magnetic field lines that typically conduct the cyclotron plasma waves to the polar regions in the EEP-NOx process. 'Hybrid Wave Suppression' has been seen to occur on multiples of the gyrofrequency above the second gyroharmonic.



Then when FM came over the airwaves over taking AM, I wonder if it might have overloaded the ionosphere creating cyclotron maser plasma turbulence in the F layer, which has been recorded, and resumed the EEP-NOx ozone depletion process.



Again.. all apart of the theory as it goes.. IF there's anything to it all.

Radio waves are not additive. Mode of transmission makes no difference. No cyclotron. No gyro. No ozone depletion.


Can you elaborate Into the Night? That is if you want me to take your simple nope at all seriously. You're a smart guy, I get that, but your simple take isn't explaining your point of view adequately for me to really understand you.


You don't want to understand. That's obvious. I have already elaborated, and you rejected it. You prefer to make this as complicated as possible so that your buzzword story will seem to have some merit.

I am open to understanding your point of view, I just don't so far. Do you want me to understand? Are you open to debate this topic?
Edited on 12-11-2018 21:32
12-11-2018 21:22
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
The ionosphere isn't simple.. it's not.

I'm not trying to make this overly complicated to sell the story here. All these diagrams I made 10 years ago to understand how broadcast affects our atmosphere. In my process of looking into it.. I found that it could do so through the EEP-NOx process.
Edited on 12-11-2018 21:35
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





Join the debate Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
volcanic effects on acid rain121-09-2020 02:49
Doctors to study possible long-term effects on patients that died from COVID-19428-08-2020 06:09
Climate change - effects, impact and solutions601-06-2020 03:21
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
Migrations induced by extreme climatic events7808-11-2019 19:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact