The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).

Science isn't belief, or consensus. Beliefs are religion. Consensus is a congregation, a church.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
If you really believe that i agree wit you, you are just kidding yourself.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
I didn't say anywhere that i believed the simulation hypothesis. You came to a wrong conclusion about what i belie3ve.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Which hypothesis that i presented don't you believe? Keep in mind that hypotheses are only hypotheses, not full blown theories. I didn't say which ones i believe and i didn't say i wanted you to believe them. I just presented them for your edification.
I do believe that we live in a probabilistic universe, not a deterministic universe.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
It sounds like you believe we live in a deterministic universe.
I took a course in college where the prof said that if you shot yourself in the head, there would be a very small possibility that every single molecule in the bullet would dematerialize at the same moment and the bullet would rematerialize after it left your head. I never forgot that lesson. That was almost 60 years ago. Then when i took a paramedic course, the instructor told us about a call where they went to an attempted suicide. They went to the back yard where the victim was sitting in a chair with an entry would on one side of his head and an exit wound on the other side of his head. And he was sitting there talking to the paramedics!! It reminded me of the physics professor telling his lesson. It turns out that there was a reasonable explanation about why the bullet didn't go through his brain so it wasn't really the improbable event of total dematerialization.
I forgot to mention that in a non deterministic world everything is always materializing and dematerializing. The 2 slit experiment might tell us that things materialize and dematerialize.
Just because YOU don't believe some of the modern physics theories doesn't mean that i wasted my tuition money.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Science doesn't totally fail just because it doesn't understand the dark universe very well. Science does very well at providing theories that can be converted to engineering marvels. If you believe your absurd exaggerations, then you'll come to wrong conclusions.

Swan wrote:
I shit out the best of the best long ago

keepit wrote:
Quantum physics says that there is no such thing as a physical certainty, only probabilities.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
I shit out the best of the best long ago

Which variety tomato was it?

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).

Science isn't belief, or consensus. Beliefs are religion. Consensus is a congregation, a church.

Then how does science explain the 85-missing percent of the universe, that is missing without which science totally fails?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).

Science isn't belief, or consensus. Beliefs are religion. Consensus is a congregation, a church.

Then how does science explain the 85-missing percent of the universe, that is missing without which science totally fails?

Ease up on the meds dude, your babbling nonsense. It's not missing, if it was never there... We only explore with telescopes and radio waves. Far off crap is mixed in with a lot of background noise. The pull out repeated, predictable patterns and try to guess what it is, give it a name. Doesn't mean they always guessed correctly

keepit wrote:
Well said Swan.

Swan wrote:

Actually dark matter is the result of gravitational equations that fail because there is not enough mass to create gravity, and instead of saying that they were and are wrong, they just invented more stuff and made it invisible. Then followers like you just agree without actually thinking

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually dark matter is the result of gravitational equations that fail because there is not enough mass to create gravity, and instead of saying that they were and are wrong, they just invented more stuff and made it invisible. Then followers like you just agree without actually thinking

A part of my research requires me to say f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2. That is what science and the math that explains it allows for. In terms of dark matter and gravity, what does it mean?
If we were to consider that gravity has energy then the Earth's gravity would be able to be conserve in a gravity powered engine that produces meaningful work.
When gravity accelerates a weight to say f(x) = 1kg * distance/time (m/s) to 1 m/s
then it has the force (f = ma) of 1kg m/s. Its momentum is momentum = mv. It's mass is the same as its force.
The difference between momentum and force is if its accelerating or a constant speed. With gravity, if something is falling so it is always accelerating until it his the ground. Then it hits the ground with force.
If you are driving your car at 25mph and it weighs 1.5 tons then its
momentum = 3,000lbs * 25m/h or 109,964 ft.lb./s.
1/2mv^2 is kinetic energy and is used with understanding the kinetic energy in gasses such as KE = 3/2kT.
The issue with gravity and energy, if Newton would've gotten g = Gm1m2/r^2 right then they'd say that gravity has energy. Even today scientists have trouble considering that light from a distant star is propagated by dark matter. What tends to prove this is the inverse square law.
With a distant star its surface can be 1 which means 1^2. And then when light is emitted from that distant star the light expands according to the inverse law. Then when the parallax view is used to determine how far away a star is. After that then its intrinsic brightness (miilwatts/m^2?) will determine what type of star and its mass emitted that light.
And if the universe was empty then why does light from a distant star have a determined rate of entropy equal to what the inverse square law states?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually dark matter is the result of gravitational equations that fail because there is not enough mass to create gravity, and instead of saying that they were and are wrong, they just invented more stuff and made it invisible. Then followers like you just agree without actually thinking

A part of my research requires me to say f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2. That is what science and the math that explains it allows for. In terms of dark matter and gravity, what does it mean?
If we were to consider that gravity has energy then the Earth's gravity would be able to be conserve in a gravity powered engine that produces meaningful work.
When gravity accelerates a weight to say f(x) = 1kg * distance/time (m/s) to 1 m/s
then it has the force (f = ma) of 1kg m/s. Its momentum is momentum = mv. It's mass is the same as its force.
The difference between momentum and force is if its accelerating or a constant speed. With gravity, if something is falling so it is always accelerating until it his the ground. Then it hits the ground with force.
If you are driving your car at 25mph and it weighs 1.5 tons then its
momentum = 3,000lbs * 25m/h or 109,964 ft.lb./s.
1/2mv^2 is kinetic energy and is used with understanding the kinetic energy in gasses such as KE = 3/2kT.
The issue with gravity and energy, if Newton would've gotten g = Gm1m2/r^2 right then they'd say that gravity has energy. Even today scientists have trouble considering that light from a distant star is propagated by dark matter. What tends to prove this is the inverse square law.
With a distant star its surface can be 1 which means 1^2. And then when light is emitted from that distant star the light expands according to the inverse law. Then when the parallax view is used to determine how far away a star is. After that then its intrinsic brightness (miilwatts/m^2?) will determine what type of star and its mass emitted that light.
And if the universe was empty then why does light from a distant star have a determined rate of entropy equal to what the inverse square law states?

Into the Night wrote:

Gravity is not energy.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually dark matter is the result of gravitational equations that fail because there is not enough mass to create gravity, and instead of saying that they were and are wrong, they just invented more stuff and made it invisible. Then followers like you just agree without actually thinking

A part of my research requires me to say f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2. That is what science and the math that explains it allows for. In terms of dark matter and gravity, what does it mean?
If we were to consider that gravity has energy then the Earth's gravity would be able to be conserve in a gravity powered engine that produces meaningful work.
When gravity accelerates a weight to say f(x) = 1kg * distance/time (m/s) to 1 m/s
then it has the force (f = ma) of 1kg m/s. Its momentum is momentum = mv. It's mass is the same as its force.
The difference between momentum and force is if its accelerating or a constant speed. With gravity, if something is falling so it is always accelerating until it his the ground. Then it hits the ground with force.
If you are driving your car at 25mph and it weighs 1.5 tons then its
momentum = 3,000lbs * 25m/h or 109,964 ft.lb./s.
1/2mv^2 is kinetic energy and is used with understanding the kinetic energy in gasses such as KE = 3/2kT.
The issue with gravity and energy, if Newton would've gotten g = Gm1m2/r^2 right then they'd say that gravity has energy. Even today scientists have trouble considering that light from a distant star is propagated by dark matter. What tends to prove this is the inverse square law.
With a distant star its surface can be 1 which means 1^2. And then when light is emitted from that distant star the light expands according to the inverse law. Then when the parallax view is used to determine how far away a star is. After that then its intrinsic brightness (miilwatts/m^2?) will determine what type of star and its mass emitted that light.
And if the universe was empty then why does light from a distant star have a determined rate of entropy equal to what the inverse square law states?

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

You're ignoring that science allows for momentum to be conserved. I think it shows ignorance on the part of any individual who doesn't allow for what science allows for.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

You're ignoring that science allows for momentum to be conserved. I think it shows ignorance on the part of any individual who doesn't allow for what science allows for.

The reason that there are no working perpetual motion machines is because friction and the gravity that causes it destroys momentum. However you can prove me wrong by creating a perpetual motion machine at any time, and feel free to use what you call science.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ready set go

If I lift a bowling ball to the top of a hill and let it go, the ball falls, speeds up, and seems to gain energy. Isn't this a case of gravity giving energy to the bowling ball? No. Again, gravity is just a force, so it just describes how objects interact. The energy that the ball displays as a falling motion came from my muscles when I hefted the bowling ball to the top of the hill, and not from gravity.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

You're ignoring that science allows for momentum to be conserved. I think it shows ignorance on the part of any individual who doesn't allow for what science allows for.

The reason that there are no working perpetual motion machines is because friction and the gravity that causes it destroys momentum. However you can prove me wrong by creating a perpetual motion machine at any time, and feel free to use what you call science.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ready set go

Your name wouldn't happen to be dehammer or Alan would it?

James_ wrote:
And there's.....

Yep for over 15 years one person has used many names and says I have to marry him and have his babies. He also says his name is Lot and that I am the son of Lot.

Genesis 19:33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I slept with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.

Why I'll need to move to a none Christian country. Christians like the Bible for a reason. And saying I have to prove myself to my father is I got him drunk on "my wine".

Who I think Swan is and this guy has said the V.A. diagnosed him with mental health issues as well. https://www.ksla.com/story/37863650/an-arklatex-man-endures-a-series-of-unfortunate-events/

And when I had colorectal cancer he told me to shove it back up my butt because he was getting ready to eat. He could've worked with me but he said he'd show me what it means to be a scriptural Christian. Yep, for 15 years he said little boy Im going to raise you according to what the Bible says;
Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it"

Yep, who says ready, set, go and the clocking is ticking? Why would I need to prove myself to someone with mental health issues?
Alan, I'm going to quit posting in here because when you said you were Jubat and not Alan Bauldree, as soon as I said I bow down to the God of perpetual motion you gave me conditions on what you'd let me say.

Good Riddance and Bye

p.s., If you remember some of the arguments Alan used, he's read this;
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

I've posted that before to explain what is taught and how they ignore conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum and Alan would be aware of it. His quoting it was almost word for word......

If I lift a bowling ball to the top of a hill and let it go, the ball falls, speeds up, and seems to gain energy. Isn't this a case of gravity giving energy to the bowling ball? No. Again, gravity is just a force, so it just describes how objects interact. The energy that the ball displays as a falling motion came from my muscles when I hefted the bowling ball to the top of the hill, and not from gravity.

I also have to give him credit for teaching me. When he encouraged people to attack me then I had to go it alone. That is his "tough love' method of teaching his son (me) and I will give him credit and say he can do his own work as in science since he'll be getting the credit for it. I wouldn't have learned it if he would've let me have a life.
And yet Christians like him because Christians are the "grown ups" and everyone else are their children to rear according to how they want their children to look up to them. Yet they won't do their own children that way.

p.s., This is how much thought he puts in his work; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh2sJXHmG0 why he can't let me have a life. He's a Christian and has to be seen as better because he goes to church. Ask his preacher, his preacher will tell you how good Alan is because that's why the church employs them.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

You're ignoring that science allows for momentum to be conserved. I think it shows ignorance on the part of any individual who doesn't allow for what science allows for.

The reason that there are no working perpetual motion machines is because friction and the gravity that causes it destroys momentum. However you can prove me wrong by creating a perpetual motion machine at any time, and feel free to use what you call science.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ready set go

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.