Remember me
▼ Content

solar power



Page 1 of 212>
solar power23-04-2021 07:34
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Last week it was announced that the Western Australian state government was going to invest 50 Million on putting solar panels on the Airport.It is a good location as there are no buildings or trees to shade them out.Perth is possibly one of the sunniest places on the planet.Its a win all round with creating jobs and we have developed new technology locally that has improved the panels and the battery storage.It will create enough power to serve 136,000 local houses.The logic for doing it may be flawed but the end result is good


duncan61
23-04-2021 18:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:
Last week it was announced that the Western Australian state government was going to invest 50 Million on putting solar panels on the Airport.It is a good location as there are no buildings or trees to shade them out.Perth is possibly one of the sunniest places on the planet.Its a win all round with creating jobs and we have developed new technology locally that has improved the panels and the battery storage.It will create enough power to serve 136,000 local houses.The logic for doing it may be flawed but the end result is good

Why doesn't Perth simply connect turbines to stacks of CO2 cannisters, with all the negative work permanently being performed? Of course this solution makes perfect sense to you so why isn't Perth doing this? Is Perth simply full of idiots who think there's no gravity? Don't the residents of Perth realize that the past tense and the present tense are the same? What's holding them back?

23-04-2021 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Last week it was announced that the Western Australian state government was going to invest 50 Million on putting solar panels on the Airport.It is a good location as there are no buildings or trees to shade them out.Perth is possibly one of the sunniest places on the planet.Its a win all round with creating jobs and we have developed new technology locally that has improved the panels and the battery storage.It will create enough power to serve 136,000 local houses.The logic for doing it may be flawed but the end result is good


Your tax dollars hard at work, building one of the most expensive forms of energy for an airport and a measly 136000 houses. That oughtta cover about 17% of 'em, IF and only if panels are receiving sunlight.

At night, of course, there is NO power delivered from these solar panels.

Then there is the continuing cost of maintaining them...repairing critter damage, sand damage, UV damage, oil damage (airports have oil aerosols around them!), etc.

All to power 17% of Perth's homes part of the time, when demand is low.

What a waste. No, the end result is NOT good. It's a huge waste of money, and I think you'll find the project will be more expensive than they claimed. Government cost overruns are pretty common these days.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 23-04-2021 23:29
24-04-2021 03:12
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The idea was inspired by the new panels and storage batteries that have been designed and manufactured locally.I live in an affluent suburb and from the hill I can see a lot of houses with solar panels on the roof.A rebate was given for installing panels and any eccess power was purchased back.This was before this AGW/CC was getting to much traction.To upgrade Muja coal fired power station would cost way more and it is still at its shelf life.Money is not the issue our government has billions to throw around.When nothing bad happens to the planet over the next 20 years all the protestors will be able to claim they solved they saved the planet.
24-04-2021 04:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:The idea was inspired by the new panels and storage batteries that have been designed and manufactured locally..

You never explained why Perth doesn't take advantage of all that gravity which is so plentiful and cheap there in SWA to just generate all the energy it needs through negative work? You understand everything Pete Rogers has been saying, right? Why aren't you implementing it?


25-04-2021 04:22
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Work is a measurement of energy, so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!
Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance. Suppose we needed to set up ice hockey goal nets. Initially the nets are standing still with zero velocity at the edge of the ice hockey rink. When you push a net, it will start moving at some speed; it has velocity. If there is a velocity then the net now has kinetic energy. Because the direction of the push and the movement of the net are in the same direction, there is now positive energy: the goalie net went from zero energy to some amount of positive kinetic energy. This is an example of positive work.
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving. But the goalie net may be moving so fast that you are not able to stay still on the ice, and you move backwards. Your force is in the opposite direction as the movement. This is the opposite situation from the one above: the moving goalie net has kinetic energy, but loses kinetic energy as you slow it down. In this case, work is negative as the force applied to the goalie net is in the opposite direction of the net's movement.
Figure of person being pushed by ice hockey rink
Figure of person being pushed by ice hockey rink
Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.
For example, in this picture here as a person pushes the book across the table, neither the gravity force or the normal force do any work because there is no displacement in the y-direction, but the pushing force does do work because the pushing force is in the same direction as the movement of the book.
Figure of book being pushed across a table
Figure of book being pushed across a table
EXAMPLE
Let look as some examples of calculating work all involving this crate of snakes weighing 50kg.
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
What is the work done by gravity as this crate of snakes is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (-mg)d = (-9.8)(50)10 = -4900 JW=Fd=(−mg)d=(−9.8)(50)10=−4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, m, g, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 9, point, 8, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 50, right parenthesis, 10, equals, minus, 4900, J
This is negative work! Gravity does negative work here because gravity goes in the opposite direction as the displacement.
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the work done by the tension in the rope as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
The phrase "constant velocity" always translates to zero acceleration. From drawing a free body force diagram, we can see the tension force is equal the gravity force, so T=mg.
W=Fd = Td = (mg)(10) = 4900 JW=Fd=Td=(mg)(10)=4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, T, d, equals, left parenthesis, m, g, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 10, right parenthesis, equals, 4900, J
This is positive work. The tension force is in the same direction as the movement.
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the net work done on the crate as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (F_g+T)d = (-4900 J+4900 J)d= 0W=Fd=(F
g

+T)d=(−4900J+4900J)d=0W, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, F, start subscript, g, end subscript, plus, T, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 4900, J, plus, 4900, J, right parenthesis, d, equals, 0
The net work is zero because there is no increase or decrease in kinetic energy: the crate is moving at a constant velocity.

I typed in Negative work and this was the first thing that came up.Pick the weevils out of this
25-04-2021 04:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
About 795,000,000 results (0.75 seconds) on the topic.
25-04-2021 05:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
The idea was inspired by the new panels and storage batteries that have been designed and manufactured locally.I live in an affluent suburb and from the hill I can see a lot of houses with solar panels on the roof.A rebate was given for installing panels and any eccess power was purchased back.This was before this AGW/CC was getting to much traction.To upgrade Muja coal fired power station would cost way more and it is still at its shelf life.Money is not the issue our government has billions to throw around.When nothing bad happens to the planet over the next 20 years all the protestors will be able to claim they solved they saved the planet.


You are talking in a void. Batteries are not energy. Solar panels are not a 'new design'. They are the same panels as always...just repackaged. They still have all the same faults and expense as always.

Solar power is piddle power. It is the most expensive method of generating power.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-04-2021 05:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Work is a measurement of energy,

Work is not energy.
duncan61 wrote:
so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

No, it can't.
duncan61 wrote:
Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance. Suppose we needed to set up ice hockey goal nets. Initially the nets are standing still with zero velocity at the edge of the ice hockey rink. When you push a net, it will start moving at some speed; it has velocity. If there is a velocity then the net now has kinetic energy. Because the direction of the push and the movement of the net are in the same direction, there is now positive energy: the goalie net went from zero energy to some amount of positive kinetic energy. This is an example of positive work.
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving. But the goalie net may be moving so fast that you are not able to stay still on the ice, and you move backwards. Your force is in the opposite direction as the movement. This is the opposite situation from the one above: the moving goalie net has kinetic energy, but loses kinetic energy as you slow it down. In this case, work is negative as the force applied to the goalie net is in the opposite direction of the net's movement.

Both are positive work.
duncan61 wrote:
Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

WRONG! All forces are considered. Denial of vector math.
duncan61 wrote:
For example, in this picture here as a person pushes the book across the table, neither the gravity force or the normal force do any work because there is no displacement in the y-direction, but the pushing force does do work because the pushing force is in the same direction as the movement of the book.
Figure of book being pushed across a table
Figure of book being pushed across a table
EXAMPLE
Let look as some examples of calculating work all involving this crate of snakes weighing 50kg.
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
What is the work done by gravity as this crate of snakes is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (-mg)d = (-9.8)(50)10 = -4900 JW=Fd=(−mg)d=(−9.8)(50)10=−4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, m, g, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 9, point, 8, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 50, right parenthesis, 10, equals, minus, 4900, J
This is negative work! Gravity does negative work here because gravity goes in the opposite direction as the displacement.

Both are positive work.
duncan61 wrote:
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the work done by the tension in the rope as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
The phrase "constant velocity" always translates to zero acceleration. From drawing a free body force diagram, we can see the tension force is equal the gravity force, so T=mg.
W=Fd = Td = (mg)(10) = 4900 JW=Fd=Td=(mg)(10)=4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, T, d, equals, left parenthesis, m, g, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 10, right parenthesis, equals, 4900, J
This is positive work. The tension force is in the same direction as the movement.
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the net work done on the crate as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (F_g+T)d = (-4900 J+4900 J)d= 0W=Fd=(F
g

+T)d=(−4900J+4900J)d=0W, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, F, start subscript, g, end subscript, plus, T, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 4900, J, plus, 4900, J, right parenthesis, d, equals, 0
The net work is zero because there is no increase or decrease in kinetic energy: the crate is moving at a constant velocity.

I typed in Negative work and this was the first thing that came up.Pick the weevils out of this

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-04-2021 06:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:Work is a measurement of energy, so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

In reading this thread it seems we are allowing ourselves to get confused over terminology.

While Work is technically not Energy, it is nonetheless measured in energy units and Energy can be swapped in for Work in all cases (just not the other way around).

When discussing thermodynamics we necessarily must be clear on context, e.g. whether we are discussing an open system or a closed one, or whether the energy we are discussing is usable energy or not usable. Work is the result of usable Energy.

Neither can be negative. There is no negative Energy in nature. There is no negative Work in nature. The term negative work necessarily implies a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you are going to claim it, then you need to explain it ... with brand new science.

You claim it, you explain it. You don't get to claim it and demand others accept it on blind faith.

If, on the other hand, Pete Rogers and you wish to claim that there is Energy being subtracted from other Energy, you need to detail exactly what Energy is being subtracted from what other Energy. Of course, both of you are liars who REFUSE to address this fatal flaw. Ergo, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody wants to read any more of your crap.

duncan61 wrote: Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance.

Work is the result of usable Energy applying a Force over a Distance and equals the Force multiplied by the Distance. Why are you pretending that I haven't explained this exact point many times already? You should be asking yourself "What's wrong with this picture?", i.e. you of all people pretending to lecture others on physics. You should be asking others (definitely not Pete Rogers) what the correct answer is.

You know that you need to explain the FATAL FLAWS in your WACKY dogma. Dedicate your effort to that, or be honest and admit to the crazy nature of your faith and move on to something else.

For those just joining this discussion, below are the fatal flaws in the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement dogma, which is just a bizarre but isomorphic version of Greenhouse Effect.

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


duncan61 wrote:Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving.

This is a positive Force that you want to subtract. There is no such thing in nature as a negative Force that you can factor over a distance to result in negative Work.

In your example, you are providing the specific work that is being subtracted from other specific work. Pete Rogers and you have yet to do this for your WACKY dogma. Why have you not specified this as you have in your hockey net example? In your example you opened with exactly what was being subtracted from what. Yet somehow you never question Pete Rogers for never mentioning exactly what is being subtracted from what. All this does is put you on the hook for the answer ... so what is it? In ATE, what specifically is being subtracted from what specifically ... and how does that result in a temperature increase?

I await your answer.

duncan61 wrote:Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

Incorrect. You suck at calculus. Ask me how I know.

So have we finally reached the point in the "negative work" discussion that you now realize that your horrendous error is the result of egregious mathematical incompetence? Can we just close this one out?

25-04-2021 06:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:Work is a measurement of energy, so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

In reading this thread it seems we are allowing ourselves to get confused over terminology.

While Work is technically not Energy, it is nonetheless measured in energy units and Energy can be swapped in for Work in all cases (just not the other way around).

When discussing thermodynamics we necessarily must be clear on context, e.g. whether we are discussing an open system or a closed one, or whether the energy we are discussing is usable energy or not usable. Work is the result of usable Energy.

Neither can be negative. There is no negative Energy in nature. There is no negative Work in nature. The term negative work necessarily implies a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you are going to claim it, then you need to explain it ... with brand new science.

You claim it, you explain it. You don't get to claim it and demand others accept it on blind faith.

If, on the other hand, Pete Rogers and you wish to claim that there is Energy being subtracted from other Energy, you need to detail exactly what Energy is being subtracted from what other Energy. Of course, both of you are liars who REFUSE to address this fatal flaw. Ergo, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody wants to read any more of your crap.

duncan61 wrote: Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance.

Work is the result of usable Energy applying a Force over a Distance and equals the Force multiplied by the Distance. Why are you pretending that I haven't explained this exact point many times already? You should be asking yourself "What's wrong with this picture?", i.e. you of all people pretending to lecture others on physics. You should be asking others (definitely not Pete Rogers) what the correct answer is.

You know that you need to explain the FATAL FLAWS in your WACKY dogma. Dedicate your effort to that, or be honest and admit to the crazy nature of your faith and move on to something else.

For those just joining this discussion, below are the fatal flaws in the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement dogma, which is just a bizarre but isomorphic version of Greenhouse Effect.

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


duncan61 wrote:Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving.

This is a positive Force that you want to subtract. There is no such thing in nature as a negative Force that you can factor over a distance to result in negative Work.

In your example, you are providing the specific work that is being subtracted from other specific work. Pete Rogers and you have yet to do this for your WACKY dogma. Why have you not specified this as you have in your hockey net example? In your example you opened with exactly what was being subtracted from what. Yet somehow you never question Pete Rogers for never mentioning exactly what is being subtracted from what. All this does is put you on the hook for the answer ... so what is it? In ATE, what specifically is being subtracted from what specifically ... and how does that result in a temperature increase?

I await your answer.

duncan61 wrote:Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

Incorrect. You suck at calculus. Ask me how I know.

So have we finally reached the point in the "negative work" discussion that you now realize that your horrendous error is the result of egregious mathematical incompetence? Can we just close this one out?

25-04-2021 09:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
795 million hits on the topic of negative work but you claim it does not exist.
25-04-2021 11:02
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
If you stand on a spring and compress it it is positive force if you step off the spring it cannot be positive force again as the force has been removed.Ergo negative force.Simple stuff really
25-04-2021 18:27
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
duncan61 wrote:
If you stand on a spring and compress it it is positive force if you step off the spring it cannot be positive force again as the force has been removed.Ergo negative force.Simple stuff really


Stepping off the spring, would be work... Gravity assists you, to compress the spring, but you, and the spring, have to work against gravity, when you step off. You don't get back, what you put into it.

Negative work does exist... We all have had jobs, where most people do what they get paid to do. There are always a few, who do the bare minimal, if even that. Most sit around talking, while others have to pick up the slack. Then, there are the rare few, that do things, that make the job more difficult, for other employees...

If there was machines that could use 'negative' work, we'd have perpetual motion. If there was ant-gravity, the gravity-wheel, would have work centuries ago. Some people do make a lot of money off perpetual motion machines. It's not the actual device, but they work to sell the idea.
25-04-2021 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:If you stand on a spring and compress it it is positive force if you step off the spring it cannot be positive force again as the force has been removed.Ergo negative force.Simple stuff really

Incorrect.

For every Force there is an equal Force in the opposite direction, not a negative one. You have been advised of the physics involved multiple times. You are well aware that there are no negative forces in nature. Your insistence on violating physics stands as a testament to your devotion to the wondrous miracle of your version of Greenhouse Effect and of your total OBEDIENCE to Pete Rogers.

Does membership in the ATE congregation come with a free prayer rug or does the call to prayer involve low-surface furniture?



p.s. - Did you think I wouldn't notice that you still have made no effort to address and fix the FATAL FLAWS in the ATE dogma or did you think I would just somehow forget and that they would all simply disappear?
25-04-2021 18:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:795 million hits on the topic of negative work but you claim it does not exist.

There are twice that many hits for Bigfoot so you insist he must therefore exist. You are a moron. I can see why Pete Rogers was so easily able to bamboozle you into becoming his bitch. Did he teach you the second use for a pool table?

26-04-2021 10:39
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I am happy with my understanding of ATE. I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.The Atmosphere has a mass which takes time to heat and cool from the energy radiated from the surface and gravity is making the Atmosphere thicker at ground level so it makes a difference.The term thicker is from someone else but i like it.Thats it.
26-04-2021 16:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
duncan61 wrote:
I am happy with my understanding of ATE.

IOW, "I am happy with my scientific and mathematical illiteracy".

Pete Rogers is happy with it too. That's how he adds people such as yourself into his congregation. Does your "Church of ATE" worship service consist of being bent over a pew for an hour? How often do you gather to get bent over a pew... I mean... to "receive" an "enlightening" "sermon"? Just asking for a friend...

duncan61 wrote:
I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.

Did you share Pete's ATE theology with your fellow congregants? Were they bent over pews as well?

duncan61 wrote:
The Atmosphere has a mass which takes time to heat and cool from the energy radiated from the surface and gravity is making the Atmosphere thicker at ground level so it makes a difference.

So you're saying that we need to reduce gravity to stop Global Warming's assault on all mankind? May I suggest first reducing ATE worship gatherings to reduce Pete's assault on your behind?

duncan61 wrote:
The term thicker is from someone else but i like it.Thats it.

Is it from Pete by any chance? I hear through the grapevine that Pete's "sermons" are quite "thicker" than other "sermons" are.
26-04-2021 23:54
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
duncan61 wrote:
I am happy with my understanding of ATE. I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.The Atmosphere has a mass which takes time to heat and cool from the energy radiated from the surface and gravity is making the Atmosphere thicker at ground level so it makes a difference.The term thicker is from someone else but i like it. That's it.



Peter Rogers is over simplifying things. He has yet to demonstrate how gravity on Earth which is 9.81 m/s/s and on Venus is 8.92 m/s/s. Why is Venus so much hotter?
To understand this, we need to consider Einstein's Theory of Relativity and how it was proven. We're simply not there yet.
29-04-2021 02:31
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I did not weigh in when Tmiddles was getting involved in the venus debate however apparently the atmosphere of Venus is mostly Co2 and a lot denser than our blue green rock.Different atmosphere different atmospheric thermal effect??
29-04-2021 02:42
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
duncan61 wrote:
I did not weigh in when Tmiddles was getting involved in the venus debate however apparently the atmosphere of Venus is mostly Co2 and a lot denser than our blue green rock.Different atmosphere different atmospheric thermal effect??



We're going back to what proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It allows for modern science like computers. But that is about light from a distant star bending when it moves past our Sun.
29-04-2021 07:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


James___ wrote: We're going back to what proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Actually, nothing Duncan was talking about involved Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but what you are talking about is Einstein's Energy-Mass equivalence, i.e. E=Mc^2

This says that all energy has mass, and the formula tells you exactly how much. Light, not being matter, was thought to not have any mass so the experiment with the light bending around a black hole was intended to falsify Einstein's equivalence and the light was not supposed to bend ... but it did, just as Einstein said it would.

The Theory of Relativity goes into complicated calculus showing that gravity is not an instantaneous acceleration but that gravitons travel at the speed of light and thus create a "curvature" in space-time.

29-04-2021 07:29
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: We're going back to what proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Actually, nothing Duncan was talking about involved Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but what you are talking about is Einstein's Energy-Mass equivalence, i.e. E=Mc^2

This says that all energy has mass, and the formula tells you exactly how much. Light, not being matter, was thought to not have any mass so the experiment with the light bending around a black hole was intended to falsify Einstein's equivalence and the light was not supposed to bend ... but it did, just as Einstein said it would.

The Theory of Relativity goes into complicated calculus showing that gravity is not an instantaneous acceleration but that gravitons travel at the speed of light and thus create a "curvature" in space-time.




You're just delusional.
was thought to not have any mass so the experiment with the light bending around a black hole was intended to falsify Einstein's equivalence and the light was not supposed to bend ... but it did, just as Einstein said it would.

And I notice gals at the beach wearing things. Kind of hot and at the beach, they do want to be noticed. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you wearing a thing? Got pics? Not that I want to see them but am queerious. Just asking for a friend. 4K video is preferred.
As you were saying, there are not any new experiments associated with Einsteins E = MC^2.. Just nothing new.
29-04-2021 07:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote:I am happy with my understanding of ATE.

Translation: You are happy being scientifically illiterate. You enjoy being gullible.
You are happy to allow yourself to be manipulated. You are happy to lie for those who manipulate you.

That's one pretty screwed-up religion you've adopted there. It says a lot about you.

duncan61 wrote: I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.

Which of the fatal flaws makes the most sense to you?

duncan61 wrote: The Atmosphere has a mass which [blah, blah blah, ... does not address any of the fatal flaws]

Focus on the fatal flaws. How do you reconcile the FATAL FLAWS such that ATE makes sense to you?

FATAL FLAWS of ATE

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


By the way, every time you pretend the fatal flaws don't exist and ignore them altogether, I will simply ask you again. It takes me seconds to copy-paste them from Politiplex and another few seconds to provide the link so that everyone reading the post can read my primer of the ATE crap so you won't be fooling anyone ... but you sure make everyone realize just what a deluded liar you are.

I just figured you should know.

29-04-2021 07:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote:I did not weigh in when Tmiddles was getting involved in the venus debate

Why not? Why didn't you chime in when your crap would have really made for a good laugh? Why didn't you speak up so we could have killed two birds with one stone as it were?

duncan61 wrote:.. however apparently the atmosphere of Venus is mostly Co2 and a lot denser than our blue green rock.

Yes, Venus is a different planet. Separate, different, apart and distinct.

Your point?

duncan61 wrote: Different atmosphere different atmospheric thermal effect??

How do the FATAL FLAWS differ for Venus?

29-04-2021 15:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
You have created the FATAL FLAWS argument.I bullet pointed this before
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere
. It is comprised of gasses
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
This is the Atmospheric thermal effect.
Why do you have such a problem with this??You have imported it to this thread and other threads which is demonstrating your desire to dominate this forum.
Back on the solar power situation our government has pledged over 500 million to upgrade our defence capabilities in Darwin.50 million on solar power seems like a good deal
29-04-2021 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote: You have created the FATAL FLAWS argument.

It's not an argument, moron, it's a list. This list explains why you are a gullible moron who thinks that a list of fatal flaws is somehow an affirmative argument. You really have to work at it to be this stupid.

duncan61 wrote:I bullet pointed this before

You never addressed the FATAL FLAWS. Your bullets are meaningless.

duncan61 wrote:This is the Atmospheric thermal effect.

Nope. After all of your insistence that you somehow totally understand Pete Rogers' gibberish, you apparently don't understand it at all. Nowhere in your bullets do you mention the 33C temperature increase the ATE imposes on the global average temperature in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I know that I have pointed this FATAL FLAW out to you on multiple occasions as Pete Rogers made it and I don't see it in your bullet list. Where is it? Then, how do you reconcile it with your assertion that this absurd violation of physics somehow makes total sense to you? Why do you REFUSE to answer?

Coward. Moron. Liar. Gullible dumbass.

duncan61 wrote:Why do you have such a problem with this??You have imported it to this thread and other threads which is demonstrating your desire to dominate this forum.

Quit trying to change the topic, moron. You are a liar and your attempts to bully me into changing the topic won't work. There is only one issue that you could have resolved LONG AGO but you insist on dragging out your total dishonestly and dominating this site with your PREACHING, you fuuúking lying moron.

I'm not going to let that happen without challenging you on it, that's for sure. You need to answer for every claim you make, for all dogma you assert and for all beliefs you demand other posters embrace on faith without question.

You need to start by reconciling the FATAL FLAWS of your fúukked-up religion, the one that targetted you because you are a gullible moron who can be made to believe anything and that has enlisted you to PREACH that religion here on this site.

For your convenience, I am posting the FATAL FLAWS below:

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


If you'd like, you can try again to bully me into changing the topic. You can also try to get me to forget that you have not yet addressed a single FATAL FLAW. Who knows, it might work, right?

Do you know how long it takes me to post a link to the list of the FATAL FLAWS

Let's see, set the timer. Go.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Time! Thirteen seconds. Wow. Oh look, I can just copy-paste.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Why don't you just address them? Really? I'm not the only one who is wondering why you are such a sniveling, craven coward on this topic. Shall I post them again for you, in case you missed the list a few lines up? Really, it's no trouble at all.

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


duncan61 wrote: Back on the solar power situation our government has pledged over 500 million to upgrade our defence capabilities ... blah, blah, blah

Please stay on topic ... which is "Why hasn't your government simply implemented your WACKY ATE to generate unlimited energy?" We have already ruled out the possibility that the price of gravity has somehow become prohibitive. Why hasn't your government implemented your ATE?

Moron.

29-04-2021 17:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I bullet pointed this before

You never addressed the FATAL FLAWS.

I know that I have pointed this FATAL FLAW out to you on multiple occasions as Pete Rogers made it and I don't see it in your bullet list. Where is it?

Quit trying to change the topic, moron. You are a liar and your attempts to bully me into changing the topic won't work. There is only one issue that you could have resolved LONG AGO but you insist on dragging out your total dishonestly and dominating this site with your PREACHING, you fuuúking lying moron.

I'm not going to let that happen without challenging you on it, that's for sure. You need to answer for every claim you make, for all dogma you assert and for all beliefs you demand other posters embrace on faith without question.

You need to start by reconciling the FATAL FLAWS of your fúukked-up religion, the one that targetted you because you are a gullible moron who can be made to believe anything and that has enlisted you to PREACH that religion here on this site.

For your convenience, I am posting the FATAL FLAWS below:

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.


If you'd like, you can try again to bully me into changing the topic. You can also try to get me to forget that you have not yet addressed a single FATAL FLAW. Who knows, it might work, right?

Do you know how long it takes me to post a link to the list of the FATAL FLAWS

Let's see, set the timer. Go.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Time! Thirteen seconds. Wow. Oh look, I can just copy-paste.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Why don't you just address them? Really? I'm not the only one who is wondering why you are such a sniveling, craven coward on this topic. Shall I post them again for you, in case you missed the list a few lines up? Really, it's no trouble at all.

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

IBdaMann,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through this response of yours. Your absolute refusal to get diverted away from the "fatal flaws" issue that is at hand here is most admirable. Here, take a Christocoin for your efforts! You've most certainly earned it!


Edited on 29-04-2021 17:22
30-04-2021 01:18
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The topic is solar power.I know .I created it.I surf the net and find interesting positive subjects and post them on here for public comment.My take on the State building solar power at the airport is positive.Even if it powers one light bulb it will stop the protestors blocking up the city.They will all feel good that they saved the planet win win al round.I would like to deal with the FATAL FLAWS topic I will open a thread.Regards Duncan the Moronic Liar
30-04-2021 03:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote:The topic is solar power.I know .I created it.

The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.

What's your answer? ... or are you desperate to EVADE this one as well?

duncan61 wrote: I surf the net and find interesting positive subjects and post them on here for public comment.

... and the public commented. The question was asked "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it.

At that point, that became the question and the topic. Guess what ... that question still hasn't been answered and remains the question.

Oh, and your attempt to get me to change the subject away from just how stupid you look for unquestioningly regurgitating whatever crap Pete Rogers orders your to regurgitate and to lie whenever Pete Rogers instructs you to do so ... didn't work.

Since you are our expert on SWA it is only logical that you provide the best answer to the question "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?"

30-04-2021 10:28
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.
How does this work??.
30-04-2021 17:32
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
duncan61 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.

How does this work??.

Evasion of the question asked of you.




And thanks again for the graphic IBD... Damn, this is such a beautiful graphic. The catbird grasping the scroll has a very majestic feel to it, the background is full of Wisconsin pride, and there's even a touch of my Christian faith on display on the side. Yup, I think this graphic is a keeper.
30-04-2021 18:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote:The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.
How does this work??.

You don't get to insist that you totally understand ATE because it "makes sense" ... and then pretend to not know how it is supposed to work?

Your ATE is apparently capable of using gravity to increase the entire earth's average planetary temperature by 33C Celsius! That's quite the energy generation there, 1st law of thermodynamics be damned! Why isn't SWA implementing ATE solutions to solve ALL of their energy needs? I'm sure this is the burning question on your mind since ATE makes total sense to you and you understand it so thoroughly.

... or you could admit that you really don't have a fúuking clue about how ATE is supposed to work because you realize that gravity cannot increase the average total temperature of any object after equilibrium is reached.

Let's review your choices:

A) Fumble horribly as you cling to your dishonesty
Be honest for once

30-04-2021 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
The topic is solar power.I know .I created it.I surf the net and find interesting positive subjects and post them on here for public comment.My take on the State building solar power at the airport is positive.Even if it powers one light bulb it will stop the protestors blocking up the city.They will all feel good that they saved the planet win win al round.I would like to deal with the FATAL FLAWS topic I will open a thread.Regards Duncan the Moronic Liar


Nothing satisfies the fascist. The protestors will continue anyway.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-04-2021 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.
How does this work??.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-05-2021 03:23
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
This shows your mind set ITN. the protests have stopped and the reason to protest has gone away.
01-05-2021 03:23
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
This shows your mind set ITN. the protests have stopped and the reason to protest has gone away.
01-05-2021 03:29
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Your ATE is apparently capable of using gravity to increase the entire earth's average planetary temperature by 33C Celsius! That's quite the energy generation there, 1st law of thermodynamics be damned! Why isn't SWA implementing ATE solutions to solve ALL of their energy needs? I'm sure this is the burning question on your mind since ATE makes total sense to you and you understand it so thoroughly.
I will ask again I do not know how this works and on what date did this energy start
I always felt gravity was there since the earth was formed or are you claiming its a new thing
01-05-2021 05:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)


duncan61 wrote:I will ask again I do not know how this works and on what date did this energy start

Fuúúking liar. You insisted time and time again that you totally understand Pete Rogers affirmative argument and that it "makes sense." So your boolsch't now of claiming that you don't understand "how it works" is ignored.

Answer the fuúuking question or admit that you don't understand Pete Rogers affirmative argument what-so-fuúúuking ever.

duncan61 wrote:I always felt gravity was there since the earth was formed or are you claiming its a new thing

Fuúúuking liar. No one is claiming that there is no gravity you dumbass.

Answer the question posed to you ... or admit that you are fúuúking clueless on the matter.

Liar. Moron. Coward. Fuuúuk you. I hate liars.


01-05-2021 10:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
This shows your mind set ITN. the protests have stopped and the reason to protest has gone away.

I don't believe you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate solar power:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberal "Logic" re: Solar Energy509-04-2021 16:21
THE FUTURE OF HYDROGEN POWER1709-02-2021 03:36
Surplus electricity from wind power8801-02-2021 01:46
Efficiency of solar panels and windmills2831-01-2021 23:08
Two New Fair Global Financial System Can Easily Destroy Political Power Within All Nations129-01-2021 17:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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