upper atmosphere temp

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Is the red shift (lengthening of light waves, galaxy shapes appearing dimmer)

Red shift doesn't affect light intensity. It affects the color. Whatever color the light would normally be, because of the movement away, the light waves are lengthened and thus the frequency is reduced. This has the effect of "shifting" the color towards red. The greater the velocity, the greater the shift towards red; this is how one can tell the relative velocity that a body is moving away from earth.

So, when you are moving, shift happens.

The amplitude, however, does not change; therefore brightness does not change.

I see. Anyhow, I think we can attribute the red shift to an atmospheric effect. Probably has something to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Makes Heaven's glass a bit more opaque.

No need for 1929 theories of infinite expansion.

Galaxies of course being a projection of light onto the glass from outer space.

For James, they look gassy. Lots of gas particles colliding.

Particles colliding is the scientific basis for cold fusion https://www.iter.org/.
What they've overlooked is that the Sun has gravity and the energy in the inner part of the solar system comes from the Sun. They haven't quite replicated the parameters
of fusion in the Sun's corona. They've only replicated the corona.
With red shift, the Sun's gravitational field coupled with the Earth's might explain it.
This kind of gets into astrophysics because of how space is stretched around the Sun and the Earth.
Also, while gravity can explain why galaxies collide https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/galaxy-mergers-colliding-cosmic-matter-milky-way-andromeda/671164/, aren't they supposed to be moving further apart?
Also, if you notice how many Suns those 2 galaxies have? It's a clear enough image to where they could probably be counted. One person on Facebook who showed the first picture he took as he was pursuing a PhD in astrophysics, I mentioned look at all of those galaxies in the background behind 2 galaxies that looked similar to the 2 in the link. He didn't consider that if a galaxy is far enough away it might look like a star.
They use software to establish what's a star and what's a galaxy. He didn't understand that with a star, it's light will show what gasses are in its atmosphere/corona.

It may take me a while to digest all of the subject matter in your comment James.

But let me just say that I am a big believer in cold fusion. I think an example of basic materials needed:

container of heavy water and lithium salts
Palladium strip
Platinum coils
Deuterium
Oxygen
A way to apply voltage to container

Though the scientific consensus is saying the simple steps in the cold fusion experiment described by Pons and Fleischmann can't be repeated, Pons says the container for the experiment should undergo 20 days of electrolytic conditioning, and heat to boiling for the first run. I think the voltage needs to be applied with an oscillating intensity too. One may argue semantics, that this doesn't qualify as "cold" fusion, but who cares.

The primary goal of cold fusion would be to generate gamma radiation.

I believe:

A more complex cold fusion, with Earth being the container undergoing collisions from gravity, is what powers the Moon. The Moon would therefore be the most powerful spot of radiation in space. It powers the Sun.

But one need not think cosmically to imagine natural processes applying cold fusion.

Horny devils are also generating gamma radiation every time they have an orgasm. I think you know, that's why it's called the Blue Flame Club

You have officially triggered me to go on this rant James

With cold fusion they have the torus (mimics the Sun's corona), but they don't have a ground in the centre of the torus. If they did that then the Joules-Thomson throttling process might encourage fusion.
What the ground would do is polarise the tritium (heavy water) then the issue becomes that 2 hydrogen elements need to absorb an electron to become neutrons.

@swan, cold fusion as it's called is an attempt to create the Sun's corona. They use lasers in a magnetic field which is a torus or doughnut shape. You'll usually hear generating helium which is 2/4He, it has 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
And tritium (heavy water) has 1 proton and 2 neutrons.
By converting 2 tritium molecules into helium then the 2 neutrons to generate energy would need to be split. Quarks in a neutron or proton are electrons outside of the nuclei (nucleus). Of course if they got the neutrons to collide then that might do it.

Spongy Iris wrote:

They don't have the ground. But I think it's very rare that they can't find a willing body to throttle it.

In Julich, which may be regarded as typical for central European background atmosphere, mixing ratios varied from 0.1 to 6.5 ppb from May through October 1978. In maritime air under conditions when photochemical equilibrium was expected, formaldehyde concentrations of 0.2 ppb were observed, which can be accounted for by photochemical oxidation of methane alone. However, the high concentrations of formaldehyde found at Julich indicate other sources of formaldehyde.

Measurement-model comparisons of CH2O in clouds and in the lower marine troposphere in the presence of marine aerosols suggest rather significant CH2O uptake by as much as 85% in one extreme case compared to expectations based on modeled gas phase processes. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2003JD003451

James_ wrote:
With some of what I said, the emission and absorption spectrum of CH2O (formaldehyde) is very close. Since CH2O is unstable thermodynamics states it will seek an equilibrium with its environment. And if CH2O is 180º out of phase then it would become more stable. And this is what would allow for fusion to create 2 new molecules.
In a vacuum I postulate that the emission and absorption spectrums of molecules become more like the positive and negative charge associated with Coulomb's law; https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/coulombs-law/. And I also like the inverse square law when discussing attraction and influence in a given field such as gravity or naturally occurring gasses in our atmosphere.
It does seem that Coulomb's law applies to low pressure/temperature attraction if the emission/absorption spectrums are considered. That is because the emission and absorption spectrums would become the positive and negative charge as the energy in a given field diminishes. This might get into non-local behavior because
matter influences a gravitational field more as the amount of background radiation decreases.
And just think, a lot of this started with a paper published in 1979 about the rate of occurrence over a city and
water in or around Germany. The paper [url]https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Simultaneous-measurement-of-atmospheric-CH2O%2C-O3%2C-Platt-Perner/26b74f7190b670817c58c8d6781c7c02cf35e1a5 [/url]

Why this paper got my attention;

In Julich, which may be regarded as typical for central European background atmosphere, mixing ratios varied from 0.1 to 6.5 ppb from May through October 1978. In maritime air under conditions when photochemical equilibrium was expected, formaldehyde concentrations of 0.2 ppb were observed, which can be accounted for by photochemical oxidation of methane alone. However, the high concentrations of formaldehyde found at Julich indicate other sources of formaldehyde.

I've crossed 3 oceans, 2 on an aircraft carrier and one on a freighter, I can assure you there are no cities at sea. There are islands like Hawai'i and the Phillipines but over water is not over land.
When CH2O concentrations are higher around a city, what in pollution can allow for formaldehyde (CH2O)? CO2
and smog are found around cities.
Where Julich, Germany is located;
https://www.google.com/maps/place/52428+J%C3%BClich,+Germany/@50.9284417,6.1949088,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x47bf5955a9618aa3:0x3eefff6a1ed5a8f9!8m2!3d50.9224226!4d6.3639119!16zL20vMDNkdjQx?entry=ttu
I've been to Hamburg before and with Julich, it's near both Bonn and Cologne, sources of CO2 emissions. And as I've mentioned, CH2O has been observed to be at higher concentrations in rain clouds.

Measurement-model comparisons of CH2O in clouds and in the lower marine troposphere in the presence of marine aerosols suggest rather significant CH2O uptake by as much as 85% in one extreme case compared to expectations based on modeled gas phase processes. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2003JD003451

I mean why do all of the work when scientists have already done it? Kind of why it is important that I acknowledge research papers that I use to form my own opinions/conclusions. I wouldn't want such people hating on me when they put a lot of time and effort into their research.

p.s., Just a reminder, I've been known to follow the jet stream and air currents. Water vapor from the North Sea can move over Germany during the summer, kind of why it rains. This prevents pollution (marine aerosols) from being over the marine boundary layer (over water).
When one paper said aerosols present over the marine boundary layer (over water), that's because that pollution (aerosols) came from over a city.

Swan wrote:

Kookamungo

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Kookamungo

I guess if you don't understand basic science then it comes off as being "cartoony". The reality is that the laws of physics apply to everything the same way. Our solar system can be compared to the oxygen element which has 8 electrons. While that is small in scale, our solar system has 8 planets.
And as is known, the Sun does have a magnetic field. This kind of gets into if an oxygen element has a weak nuclear force which parallels the Sun's magnetic and gravitational fields.
Basically what creates an electron or a planet around a heavier, denser mass? I
don't know but one day some scientist might consider that.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Kookamungo

I guess if you don't understand basic science then it comes off as being "cartoony". The reality is that the laws of physics apply to everything the same way. Our solar system can be compared to the oxygen element which has 8 electrons. While that is small in scale, our solar system has 8 planets.
And as is known, the Sun does have a magnetic field. This kind of gets into if an oxygen element has a weak nuclear force which parallels the Sun's magnetic and gravitational fields.
Basically what creates an electron or a planet around a heavier, denser mass? I
don't know but one day some scientist might consider that.

LOL, how do the laws of physics explain entire galaxies moving faster than light?

This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/?sh=7f0ef0f472a2

Swan wrote:Kookamungo

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Kookamungo

I guess if you don't understand basic science then it comes off as being "cartoony". The reality is that the laws of physics apply to everything the same way. Our solar system can be compared to the oxygen element which has 8 electrons. While that is small in scale, our solar system has 8 planets.
And as is known, the Sun does have a magnetic field. This kind of gets into if an oxygen element has a weak nuclear force which parallels the Sun's magnetic and gravitational fields.
Basically what creates an electron or a planet around a heavier, denser mass? I
don't know but one day some scientist might consider that.

LOL, how do the laws of physics explain entire galaxies moving faster than light?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Kookamungo

I guess if you don't understand basic science then it comes off as being "cartoony". The reality is that the laws of physics apply to everything the same way. Our solar system can be compared to the oxygen element which has 8 electrons. While that is small in scale, our solar system has 8 planets.
And as is known, the Sun does have a magnetic field. This kind of gets into if an oxygen element has a weak nuclear force which parallels the Sun's magnetic and gravitational fields.
Basically what creates an electron or a planet around a heavier, denser mass? I
don't know but one day some scientist might consider that.

LOL, how do the laws of physics explain entire galaxies moving faster than light?

I didn't bother to read this because it's wrong;

This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/?sh=7f0ef0f472a2

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Kookamungo

It's "Cucamonga."

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

The observed red shift might be nothing more than the Sun's gravity stretching the space around it. To actually see or observe light emitted from distant stars as they are would require leaving our solar system.
Also when stars emit light, their own gravity might cause a red shift. That's something I don't think scientists have considered.

keepit wrote: Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon.

keepit wrote: The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving

keepit wrote: but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement.

keepit wrote: The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed.

keepit wrote: But the question is, where is this new space coming from?

keepit wrote: It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence.

keepit wrote: Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions,

keepit wrote: In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions.

keepit wrote: Using the friedman equation and the density of space ...

keepit wrote: it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat.

keepit wrote: It's just my speculation though.

keepit wrote: I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times.

keepit wrote: Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

keepit wrote: It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you should talk to a real physicist or read about this stuff on google.
You have misconceptions.

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

The observed red shift might be nothing more than the Sun's gravity stretching the space around it. To actually see or observe light emitted from distant stars as they are would require leaving our solar system.
Also when stars emit light, their own gravity might cause a red shift. That's something I don't think scientists have considered.

IBdaMann wrote:
How would you know that they are scientists, much less impressive ones?

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you should talk to a real physicist or read about this stuff on google.
You have misconceptions.

keepit wrote:
The interesting thing about galaxy movement faster than light is that as time goes by galaxies will start to disappear from our point of view. Eventually (very eventually) all the galaxies will disappear from our view. I could imagine a culture in the distant future that has "forgotten" that other galaxies ever existed.

James_ wrote:
According to intrinsic brightness and the inverse square law, the red shift might only be because the mass of light decreases as it creates different vectors from the original source. And with shorter wavelengths simply means that light has more mass.
In this experiment, notice that red and orange are away from the center of the black body which is where the source of heat is focused on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock The yellow/red/orange is on the outside of the black ring. This is from 2014 so the camera on my cellphone wasn't that great.
Whether or not the universe is expanding, why are these galaxies so close together? https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000008440318/webb-telescope-stephans-quintet.html

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you should talk to a real physicist or read about this stuff on google.
You have misconceptions.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

The observed red shift might be nothing more than the Sun's gravity stretching the space around it. To actually see or observe light emitted from distant stars as they are would require leaving our solar system.
Also when stars emit light, their own gravity might cause a red shift. That's something I don't think scientists have considered.

There is only one star in our solar system. It's gone by many names, but Sol is one of them.

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you should talk to a real physicist or read about this stuff on google.
You have misconceptions.

LOL Google merely wants people to be happy so it tells everyone exactly what they want to hear or see. Example, we will all doe within 8 years if climate change is not stopped, then climate change is the biggest lie ever told. How do you know which is real?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
Galaxy motion faster than light speed isn't well understood or agreed upon. The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving but rather that new space is coming into existence between the galaxies giving the impression of faster than light movement. The redshift is what gives the impression of faster than light speed. But the question is, where is this new space coming from? It's kind of like in the early 20th century where many had the view that new matter was coming into existence. Nevertheless, where is the new space coming from? It's just imho but it seems to me that new space comes from the hidden dimensions, the new space occurring in places where there is weak gravitation(between galaxies). In those places the hidden dimensions are free to unpack themselves into our visible dimensions. Hence new space.
Using the friedman equation and the density of space and the hubble constant it can be speculated new space is required to keep the universe flat. It's just my speculation though. I actually got kicked off the physics.com website for proposing this speculation a few times. Those guys are kind of touchy. But they are impressive scientists.

The observed red shift might be nothing more than the Sun's gravity stretching the space around it. To actually see or observe light emitted from distant stars as they are would require leaving our solar system.
Also when stars emit light, their own gravity might cause a red shift. That's something I don't think scientists have considered.

There is only one star in our solar system. It's gone by many names, but Sol is one of them.

And I thought you were Sol-less Isn't. I think it is as some scientists have said, Einstein didn't think light bending around a distant star could be observed yet it has been.

Yes, it is well understood. The majority of the world accepts Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you should talk to a real physicist or read about this stuff on google.
You have misconceptions.

LOL Google merely wants people to be happy so it tells everyone exactly what they want to hear or see. Example, we will all doe within 8 years if climate change is not stopped, then climate change is the biggest lie ever told. How do you know which is real?

This question has already been answered.

See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Climate cannot change. Climate has no values that can change. There is no such thing as a global climate.

Xadoman wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: The predominant view is that the galaxies aren't actually moving

Nope. The predominant view is the Hawking model.

Consensus has no place in science.

Swan wrote:LOL if no gas can warm the Earth then you cannot get burned if you stick your face over old faithful

keepit wrote:
Consensus does have an extremely important part in science. Think of what Newton said about his knowledge having been built upon the shoulders of giants!
People need other people to stimulate their thinking, whether in a social way or in a scientific way.