Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
If a wave has no amplitude it's wave cannot resonate or have an effect on anything else.

James___ wrote:
As a result their would be no dispersion.

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

James___ wrote:
That's because photons are never at rest so can have no rest mass. Waves are composed of photons.

James___ wrote:
I could repeat what's in the books but not everything is explained.

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.

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

James___ wrote:
With me, I live in a coal producing state and they see no reason to improve anything 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.

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.

James___ wrote:
This would explain why the tropopause is - 56° C. and the stratosphere above the ozone layer is 0° C.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

James___ wrote:
I've studied physics.

James___ wrote:
Why fault me for speeding my time learning?

James___ wrote:
I'll go with Occam's razor here.

James___ wrote:
You just never saw where you needed to open a book and read it.

James___ wrote:
Not my problem.

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.

James___ wrote:
That's why the Navier - Stokes equations.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
The 2nd is that mass is omitted.

James___ wrote:
All calculations for KE includes mass.

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.

James___ wrote:
In this aspect think of light passing through a prism.

James___ wrote:
When you talk about VLFs in the upper atmosphere splintering off into different wavelengths, it might be the same principle at work.

James___ wrote:
When I say "they", the scientific community is who accepts v = fl
as The Golden Rule for frequency dispersion.

James___ wrote:
And it would be difficult to argue against it.

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.

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.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Are you saying that there's no frequency that preferentially stimulates the ionosphere?

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.