The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

Swan wrote:

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.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like one of his friends said in another forum, he doesn't see how energy can be made out of this air. You know, like with wind turbines.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like ...

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]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.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like ...
Neither...

Into the Night wrote:


It's like ...
Neither...

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

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

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.
This allows for momentum = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE (kinetic energy). What this allows for is a far more interesting (IMO) way that the Earth's atmosphere works.
It actually makes gravity more interesting. With what I'm working on I know how
I'll consider the Earth's atmosphere and will ask if your legs are shrinking, is that the same as sea levels rising in the Salish Sea?
I'll probably stay offline while I finish my build. It's a lot of work with a lot of
details and I want to enjoy working on it some. And who knows, I might start refreshing maths I've learned so I can continue on in my Calculus 1 book. And with my build I need to show a little math and some conjecture. I must admit that I did learn a lot posting in here.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.
This allows for momentum = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE (kinetic energy). What this allows for is a far more interesting (IMO) way that the Earth's atmosphere works.
It actually makes gravity more interesting. With what I'm working on I know how
I'll consider the Earth's atmosphere and will ask if your legs are shrinking, is that the same as sea levels rising in the Salish Sea?
I'll probably stay offline while I finish my build. It's a lot of work with a lot of
details and I want to enjoy working on it some. And who knows, I might start refreshing maths I've learned so I can continue on in my Calculus 1 book. And with my build I need to show a little math and some conjecture. I must admit that I did learn a lot posting in here.

Bessler didn't have power tools, Home Depot, Amazon, or Social Security Disability. Certainly it didn't take 6 years to build his wheel, in primitive times.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Bessler didn't have power tools, Home Depot, Amazon, or Social Security Disability. Certainly it didn't take 6 years to build his wheel, in primitive times.

With me, with this concept, it can work.

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Guess which member I am imitating with this response: