Relativity theory

Swan wrote:LOL This is more fun than a test of the emergency jelly donut system

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off.

I think we are losing focus. This is the statement you made that needs clarification. If the earth were stationary, how would I "fall off"?

Follow-on question: In which direction would I "fall"?

.

Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL This is more fun than a test of the emergency jelly donut system

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:LOL if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off.

I think we are losing focus. This is the statement you made that needs clarification. If the earth were stationary, how would I "fall off"?

Follow-on question: In which direction would I "fall"?

.

Swan wrote:
A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Swan wrote:
except if an emergency jelly donut action plan is put into place and all Dunkin donuts are ordered to surrender their donuts for the good of Top Secret donut shelters nationwide.

Swan wrote:
PS A person in your predicament can never really fall because you are already buried in your own sh-t

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Actually what I said was "When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity."

Swan wrote:You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL This is more fun than a test of the emergency jelly donut system

Nice meme! You are definitely getting better with them!

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Contextomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Define 'straight'. An object such as dropping a hammer on your toe is (falling toward Earth) is moving at 1000mph sideways, just as you are, relative to a fixed point on the surface discounting Earth's spin.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Contextomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Define 'straight'. An object such as dropping a hammer on your toe is (falling toward Earth) is moving at 1000mph sideways, just as you are, relative to a fixed point on the surface discounting Earth's spin.

Actually if the hammer head is heavier than the handle the head will maintain the hammer's linear momentum.

Yawn

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Contextomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Define 'straight'. An object such as dropping a hammer on your toe is (falling toward Earth) is moving at 1000mph sideways, just as you are, relative to a fixed point on the surface discounting Earth's spin.

Actually if the hammer head is heavier than the handle the head will maintain the hammer's linear momentum.

Yawn

So you are now ignoring Thenevin's law again.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Contextomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Define 'straight'. An object such as dropping a hammer on your toe is (falling toward Earth) is moving at 1000mph sideways, just as you are, relative to a fixed point on the surface discounting Earth's spin.

Actually if the hammer head is heavier than the handle the head will maintain the hammer's linear momentum.

Yawn

So you are now ignoring Thenevin's law again.

I have to assume that you are trying to say Thevenin's Theorem, however as usual you can't spell and are for some odd reason trying to imply that a hammer falling in linear momentum is part of an electric circuit.

What a waste of a PhD

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Again if the Earth had no velocity then you would fall off or float away farther than you already are at the moment.

Here you have simply restated your claim without explaining it. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between myself and the planet.

Why would I fall off the earth if it were stationary?

Swan wrote: A car could not be driven because there would be no friction between the tires and the road,

Please explain this. It doesn't make any sense. There would still be gravity between the car and the planet.

Actually what I said was

When an object falls toward Earth it's velocity and momentum are both caused by gravity.

But you knew that.
So define 'momentum'. You seem to be very confused.

Swan wrote:
My Motto is, what is this work thing?

Force applied to mass in the direction of displacement of that mass.

Swan wrote:
You introduced spin, likely because that is what your brain does in your airhead.

No, YOU introduced spin.

Swan wrote:
I also said that without gravity there would be nothing to condense space particles into a mass that has gravity and as such gravity can not be created by mass if gravity is needed to coalesce that mass in the first place.

Every particle in space has mass, and therefore gravity.

Swan wrote:
This is in part why gravity is not fully understood,

See the works of Newton and Einstein.

Swan wrote:
except to people like you that can only do as they are told without thought or question, you know like an organ grinder monkey

Who is telling him??? What are they telling him?

Swan wrote:
No matter you can continue to babble about your head spinning

You are describing yourself again.

Momentum can be linear or angular, an object falling straight has linear momentum, no spin needed.

Your mistake will be notated on your permanent record

130

Contextomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Define 'straight'. An object such as dropping a hammer on your toe is (falling toward Earth) is moving at 1000mph sideways, just as you are, relative to a fixed point on the surface discounting Earth's spin.

Actually if the hammer head is heavier than the handle the head will maintain the hammer's linear momentum.

Yawn

So you are now ignoring Thenevin's law again.

I have to assume that you are trying to say Thevenin's Theorem, however as usual you can't spell and are for some odd reason trying to imply that a hammer falling in linear momentum is part of an electric circuit.

What a waste of a PhD

Typo. It does not apply only to electric circuits.

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

James_ wrote:So what you're saying is that with a single voltage/amplitude that a circuit can be simplified.

James_ wrote:And then if we use a prism (resistor)

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

So what you're saying is that with a single voltage/amplitude that a circuit can be simplified. And then if we use a prism (resistor) we can observe different wavelengths (colors) of light.
So?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

So what you're saying is that with a single voltage/amplitude that a circuit can be simplified. And then if we use a prism (resistor) we can observe different wavelengths (colors) of light.
So?

No because falling hammers do not have circuits.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

So what you're saying is that with a single voltage/amplitude that a circuit can be simplified. And then if we use a prism (resistor) we can observe different wavelengths (colors) of light.
So?

No because falling hammers do not have circuits.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

No voltage path necessary.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

No voltage path necessary.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum also implies Thevenin's Theorem. Which is obvious because your entire talent is diffusion of cognition which is amplified by your mental state.

You are going to die as the wannabe that you currently are

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

No voltage path necessary.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum also implies Thevenin's Theorem. Which is obvious because your entire talent is diffusion of cognition which is amplified by your mental state.

You are going to die as the wannabe that you currently are

Psychoquackery. Denial of science. Hallucinations. No argument presented.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

No voltage path necessary.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum also implies Thevenin's Theorem. Which is obvious because your entire talent is diffusion of cognition which is amplified by your mental state.

You are going to die as the wannabe that you currently are

Psychoquackery. Denial of science. Hallucinations. No argument presented.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum due to the pull of gravity also implies Thevenin's Theorem.

Yawning

PS. You know you are allowed to get helpy from your mommy

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Please elaborate how Thevenin's Theorem applies to a falling hammer.

It should be intuitive. If it's in linear motion, it doesn't matter how complex the hammer is. There exists an equivalent hammer of constant heft that achieves the same result. Again, this only applies to linear motion.

.

And how does that falling hammer reference the voltage path of Thevenin's Theorem?

Or do falling hammers generate electricity in the pebble that you use for a mind? The SVR wants to know

No voltage path necessary.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum also implies Thevenin's Theorem. Which is obvious because your entire talent is diffusion of cognition which is amplified by your mental state.

You are going to die as the wannabe that you currently are

Psychoquackery. Denial of science. Hallucinations. No argument presented.

Which does not explain why you believe that a falling hammer generating linear momentum due to the pull of gravity also implies Thevenin's Theorem.

Yawning

PS. You know you are allowed to get helpy from your mommy

Denial of science. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

Encyclopedia Brittanica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.

Cutting and pasting only shows you can't think for yourself.
Climate has no area. There are no values associated with climate.
There is no such thing as 'flux of water vapor into the air'. Buzzword fallacy.
There is no term 'albedo' used in physics.
You were also giving examples that have no canopy. By using this definition, you are locking yourself in yet another paradox.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

ITN doesn't know who his parents are. While he was there he can't prove he's their son. According to his logic his parents are simply 2 strangers.
What he fails to accept is that when aquifers were used to irrigate land, that is AGW (climate change). When a forest is clear cut, that is AGW. And when those aquifers become depleted, that again is AGW.
When suburbia expands and forests are removed to be replaced by asphalt, etc., again that is AGW. Yet he says that is not happening. When they ask for a simple universal definition, why do they argue that the world's population has not gone from 1,263,000,000 in 1850 to over 7,753,000,000 today?
And just a basic p.s., the increase in CO2 is an increase of C (carbon element) that previously was not in the atmosphere. Extra KE while ozone depletion has allowed in more UV - A, B and C radiation which the oceans absorb as heat.
Hydrocarbons and ODSs might be the real issue.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

Encyclopedia Brittanica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.

Cutting and pasting only shows you can't think for yourself.
Climate has no area. There are no values associated with climate.
There is no such thing as 'flux of water vapor into the air'. Buzzword fallacy.
There is no term 'albedo' used in physics.
You were also giving examples that have no canopy. By using this definition, you are locking yourself in yet another paradox.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

No problem.

microclimate at dictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/microclimate

Swan wrote:
noun
the climate of a small area, as of confined spaces such as caves or houses (cryptoclimate ), of plant communities, wooded areas, etc. (phytoclimate ), or of urban communities, which may be different from that in the general region.
[quote]Swan wrote:
Bye the way do you have any good recipes for fresh chives as mine are ready in the garden.

All while you slave in the cubicle

LOL, unlike many people I like retarded trolls.

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

Encyclopedia Brittanica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.

Cutting and pasting only shows you can't think for yourself.
Climate has no area. There are no values associated with climate.
There is no such thing as 'flux of water vapor into the air'. Buzzword fallacy.
There is no term 'albedo' used in physics.
You were also giving examples that have no canopy. By using this definition, you are locking yourself in yet another paradox.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

No problem.

microclimate at dictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/microclimate

Swan wrote:
noun
the climate of a small area, as of confined spaces such as caves or houses (cryptoclimate ), of plant communities, wooded areas, etc. (phytoclimate ), or of urban communities, which may be different from that in the general region.

Swan wrote:
Bye the way do you have any good recipes for fresh chives as mine are ready in the garden.

All while you slave in the cubicle

LOL, unlike many people I like retarded trolls.

CIAO

Climate has no size.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:Says the clown that actually denies that any climate exist on Earth.

Into the Night's stated position is that there are many climates all over earth.

Which climate in particular are you claiming that he is denying?

.

Actually all microclimates were denied, and since you claim that there are many climates you are now in agreement with me.

Define 'microclimate'. Buzzword fallacy. What makes any climate a 'microclimate'??

Swan wrote:
I would congratulate you but in order to keep yourself more confused than the Russian FSB you will change the topic once again so as said you can keep yourself off track.

130, now hand over the keys you dumb fart

Random phrases. Confusing and ignored.

Microclimate definition encyclopedia brittanica.

A microclimate is any climatic condition in a relatively small area, within a few metres or less above and below Earth's surface and within canopies of vegetation. The term usually applies to the surfaces of terrestrial and glaciated environments, but it could also pertain to the surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water.

The strongest gradients of temperature and humidity occur just above and below the terrestrial surface. Complexities of microclimate are necessary for the existence of a variety of life-forms because, although any single species may tolerate only a limited range of climate, strongly contrasting microclimates in close proximity provide a total environment in which many species of flora and fauna can coexist and interact.

Microclimatic conditions depend on such factors as temperature, humidity, wind and turbulence, dew, frost, heat balance, and evaporation. The effect of soil type on microclimates is considerable. Sandy soils and other coarse, loose, and dry soils, for example, are subject to high maximum and low minimum surface temperatures. The surface reflection characteristics of soils are also important; soils of lighter colour reflect more and respond less to daily heating (see also albedo). Another feature of the microclimate is the ability of the soil to absorb and retain moisture, which depends on the composition of the soil and its use. Vegetation is also integral, as it controls the flux of water vapour into the air through transpiration. In addition, vegetation can insulate the soil below and reduce temperature variability. Sites of exposed soil then exhibit the greatest temperature variability.

The only thing that you will never have is someone who loves you for who you are, because anyone who knows what a piece of shit that you truly are would have left you long ago, or already did.

CIAO

Encyclopedia Brittanica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.

Cutting and pasting only shows you can't think for yourself.
Climate has no area. There are no values associated with climate.
There is no such thing as 'flux of water vapor into the air'. Buzzword fallacy.
There is no term 'albedo' used in physics.
You were also giving examples that have no canopy. By using this definition, you are locking yourself in yet another paradox.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

No problem.

microclimate at dictionary.com

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/microclimate

No dictionary defines any word. Cutting and pasting isn't going to work, dude.

Swan wrote:
noun
the climate of a small area, as of confined spaces such as caves or houses (cryptoclimate ), of plant communities, wooded areas, etc. (phytoclimate ), or of urban communities, which may be different from that in the general region.

Swan wrote:
Bye the way do you have any good recipes for fresh chives as mine are ready in the garden.

All while you slave in the cubicle

LOL, unlike many people I like retarded trolls.

CIAO

Climate has no size.

Try again. Define 'microclimate'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/microclimate

microclimate
noun [ C ]
US /ˈmaɪ.kroʊˌklaɪ.mət/ UK /ˈmaɪ.krəʊˌklaɪ.mət/

an area in which the weather is usually different from the areas around it

microclimate
The state's myriad microclimates are also home to countless crops, some so specialized that certain chilies grow only in a single town.
From The Atlantic
To allow a year-round production and increase yield, mushrooms are grown in a microclimate inside growing rooms.
From Wired
Without adequate green space to help cool the atmosphere, highly populated urban areas essentially become their own overheated micro-climates.
From CBS News
They have the same microclimate; both very poor, both lots of older people living alone.
From NPR
In my experience, it takes a lot of resources to create a relatively small microclimate.
From CNN
The actual operation of the facility can destroy or modify habitats, and cause increased noise, electromagnetic field generation, microclimate alteration, pollution, water consumption, and fire.
From Slate Magazine
Sensors can do things like measure soil moisture and chemistry and track micro-climate conditions over time to help farmers decide what, where, and when to plant.
From Ars Technica
Trees may also increase water content in drylands by ameliorating microclimate and reducing soil evaporation113,114, or by hydraulic lift or redistribution115–117.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
The cooler, wetter microclimate in no-tillage fields also could have had a direct negative effect on immature pea leaf weevil, causing greater mortality.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
Interactions also occur via above-ground litter inputs and decomposition and foliage-induced changes in soil microclimate.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
The occasional, even reliably recurrent rain shower doth not a microclimate make.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
The altitudinal range depends on the region, but the outbreak zones tend to be lower at higher latitudes because microclimate (temperature regime) is similar.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
The urban water elements will also act as stormwater relief channels and contribute to the microclimate of the city.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
Changes in microclimate conditions of different cropping systems explain the variation of the yield components, and morphological and quality traits of cultivated sugarcane.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
This response can be explained by microclimate variations in the cropping systems, which was not sufficient to cause variation in sucrose content.

Silly girl