Wow!

keepit wrote:
Jeremy Grantham. My new economics hero, was just on bloomberg tv talking about econ for quite a while. I'd heard of him but i thought he was just another internet rambler.

keepit wrote:
Jeremy Grantham. My new economics hero, was just on bloomberg tv talking about econ for quite a while. I'd heard of him but i thought he was just another internet rambler.

keepit wrote: If the money is sent to the lowest earners

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: If the money is sent to the lowest earners

Money is not "sent.". Money is not "distributed"

Money is earned by adding value.

If you punish the successful by confiscating the rewards for adding value, everyone will stop adding value. Everyone will instead stop working and simply line up for the free government distribution check ... until the government has no more money to redistribute.


I notice that every economic-related idea of yours is an economy killer.

.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Do you get paid according to the amount of false claims you make.
You claimed that money is not sent. Does that mean that i won't get my stimulus check?

keepit wrote:ibd, Do you get paid according to the amount of false claims you make.

keepit wrote: You claimed that money is not sent.

keepit wrote:
Harvey,
You really ought to write fiction. You have a talent for it. Seriously.

keepit wrote:ibd, I don't have political motivations or anything of the like.
I just take things issue by issue.

keepit wrote:
Harvey,
You really ought to write fiction. You have a talent for it. Seriously.

keepit wrote: ibd, I've never seen you demonstrate any knowledge of science.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
I've never seen you demonstrate any knowledge of science. Sure, you know a few words such as math, physics, sb law, laws of thermodynamics but all you do is throw those words up as if you have a working knowledge. I've never seen it though.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Just for laughs i went back and read every one of your posts on this thread. There's nothing there, just rude talk and fluff. Go ahead, read your posts.

keepit wrote:
Harvey,
That sounds like a lame excuse for making errors in your posts.
It's like this - when you get an education, you become afraid of making inaccurate statements because professors constantly correct you and your peers don't like hear your mistakes either. You don't seem to care if you're right or wrong.
On the other hand, it is true that education stifles creativity to a small extent. That is why i think you are a good fit for writing fiction. In fiction accuracy doesn't matter. Neither does truth.

keepit wrote: I'm not perfect

keepit wrote:
RQAA doesn't demonstrate anything.

keepit wrote:
Jeremy Grantham. My new economics hero, was just on bloomberg tv talking about econ for quite a while. I'd heard of him but i thought he was just another internet rambler.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
Jeremy Grantham. My new economics hero, was just on bloomberg tv talking about econ for quite a while. I'd heard of him but i thought he was just another internet rambler.

I just watched a speech by President Biden and he mentioned where the economy needs to trickle up and expand in the middle. Then everybody will be better off.
That's what Americans need to understand if we want a more unified America.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: If the money is sent to the lowest earners

Money is not "sent.". Money is not "distributed"

Money is earned by adding value.

If you punish the successful by confiscating the rewards for adding value, everyone will stop adding value. Everyone will instead stop working and simply line up for the free government distribution check ... until the government has no more money to redistribute.


I notice that every economic-related idea of yours is an economy killer.

.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
RQAA doesn't demonstrate anything.

duncan61 wrote: I have been on this forum over a year and have not seen anyone post any of the laws that are claimed.

On 21 February Into the Night responded directly to Pet Rogers:
There is no global atmospheric compression. Gravity is not energy. Your statement is not the 1st law of thermodynamics. The 1st law of thermodynamics is E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. Gravity is neither energy nor work.

On January 3, 2021 Into the Night responded to Duncan directly:
There is no 'net radiation'. There is only radiance. The equation is:
r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

The equation is before you. Other equations also apply:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force applied over distance). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, you cannot decrease entropy...ever.

On 17 November 202 Into the Night responded directly to Regis:
No gas or vapor has the magick capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

No gas or vapor has the magick capability to reduce entropy. You can't trap heat. You can't trap light. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy never decreases.

r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is the emissivity constant (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

On 3 October 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Spongy Iris:
Not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd of thermodynamics is e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. The system must be consistent and definable. In other words, closed. It does not need to be isolated. CO2 is not a source of energy and cannot override the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are now also denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

On 8 September 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Pete Rogers:
There is no 2nd law requirement for equality of temperature. The 2nd law states: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

On 10 July 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Duncan:

Into the Night wrote:[quote]duncan61 wrote:Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future

Not my definition.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, entropy must increase or stay the same in any given system.

On 9 June Into the Night responded directly to tmiddles:

tmiddles wrote:
I understand the 1st LTD as a zero sum equation,

No it is not. It is e(t+1)=e(t)+w.

On 20 May 2020 Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. Giving a direction for heat and energy flow, energy will always dissipate if it dissipates at all. It will NEVER gather together. The system must be closed (defined consistently). The Universe that we observe is a closed system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been falsified. You are just choosing to ignore it. Mantra 20a2.

On 19 May Into the Night responded directly to Evald:
Science is not an agency. It is not a government, university, credential, degree, or license. It is not any society, academy, or institution. It is not any political organization at all. It is not scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Examples are Newton's law of motion: F=mA, or Gauss's law, describing electrostatic force: F=C*(r1+r2)/r^2, of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, describing the amount of light emitted by substance according to its temperature: r=C*e*t^4.

None of these have anything to do with any organization, government, university, or even the scientist(s) that created these theories (other than historical purposes). Each of these theories of science stand on or fall on their own, independent of any scientist or person.

Magical machines to 'purify' CO2 or any other gas is marketing hype. You fell for it completely. CO2 is already pure CO2. There is nothing impure about CO2.

It is also not possible to warm the Earth with any gas or vapor. No gas or vapor has such a capability. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)-W. You need not worry about CO2, methane, or any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.

On 6 May 2020 Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:

JackFou wrote:
I just disagree with you about what they actually say.

Newton's law of motion: F=mA
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
That is what they say. You are trying to change these equations. You are trying to deny them.

On 6 May Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:
Define 'global warming'.
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

On 15 November 2020 IBDaMann responded directly to Duncan:

duncan61 wrote:I agree with Svante August Arrhenius and Freeman dyson.

This is unfortunate because all of their work on the matter was shown to be wrong, their conclusions shown to be false, and their models pertaining to what you are referencing discarded from the body of science.

There is no Arrhenius law or any Dyson equation in physics that relates to this subject. This, and because they are deceased and cannot be questioned, is why only scientifically illiterate warmizombies herald Arrheius and Dyson as champions of their religion and as prophets of their faith. Scientists rarely have any reason to ever reference them.

This is the problem you run into when you are forced to point to people (clergy) and not to actual science. Science is not people. Science is not subjective and is not based on anyone's opinion. Nobody owns science.

If you are allowing others to do your thinking for you because you are too lazy to independently learn the subject matter in question then you deserve to be manipulated as you are being right now by whomever told you to worship Arrhenius and Dyson as prophets of Greenhouse Effect.

In physics, CO2 does not have the magical superpowers to violate physics as you seem to believe. No body of matter anywhere in the universe under any conditions (and this includes the earth) can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. You learned this when you were a child. You instinctively know that things don't just get hotter without some new energy entering the picture. Yet somehow you allowed others to convince you that your thinking is wrong and to let them do your thinking for you properly.

You committed an error when you allowed that to happen.

duncan61 wrote: By some freak of nature he got it right back then.CO2 does reflect long wave radiation.

Let's review the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can change form all day, all night, all week, all year ... but you can never create any more of it and you can never destroy any of it, i.e. you always have the same amount of energy.

So then some warmizombies come along and tell you that long wave radiation changes form in the upper stratosphere, and then changes form in the lower troposphere, and then it changes form again, and again, and again and suddenly you have more energy than when you started and temperature increases. And you bought it. You never called bullshit. That was your next error.

duncan61 wrote: Without an Atmosphere our weather would be different.

We wouldn't have any weather if we had no atmosphere.

duncan61 wrote: We would cook in the sunlight and freeze at night like the moon

Yes, the daytime oceans would boil away. Yes. All without any CO2. Go on.

duncan61 wrote:The small amount of trace gas has little to no effect

Actually, it just has no effect. There is no "little" effect that it can have (re: 1st law of thermodynamics).

On 3 March 2020 IBDaMann responded directly to James__:
The 1st LoT actually doesn't mention work. Equations that involve work are simply derivatives from the 1st LoT.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so a given quantity remains constant, i.e. Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1)

However, we humans like to break things out and represent all elements in our systems. We particularly like to point to work performed and say that we are concerned with that particular energy. Since we must adhere to the 1st LoT, we derive our constraints:

Total_Energy(t) = Work(t) + Nonwork(t) (or however we want to divide it up)

... or ...

Initial_Energy = Final_Energy + Work_Performed

The number of equations is infinite; it just depends on how you represent your experiment such that it adheres to Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1)

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
RQAA doesn't demonstrate anything.

You don't need demonstrating of anything. Your question has already been answered multiple times. Stop asking the same question over and over.

I have been on this forum over a year and have not seen anyone post any of the laws that are claimed.I have researched them myself but as google and the dictionary are wrong where do I go from here

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I have been on this forum over a year and have not seen anyone post any of the laws that are claimed.

To which laws have you intentionally turned a blind-eye?

On 21 February Into the Night responded directly to Pet Rogers:
There is no global atmospheric compression. Gravity is not energy. Your statement is not the 1st law of thermodynamics. The 1st law of thermodynamics is E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. Gravity is neither energy nor work.

On January 3, 2021 Into the Night responded to Duncan directly:
There is no 'net radiation'. There is only radiance. The equation is:
r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

The equation is before you. Other equations also apply:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force applied over distance). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, you cannot decrease entropy...ever.

On 17 November 202 Into the Night responded directly to Regis:
No gas or vapor has the magick capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

No gas or vapor has the magick capability to reduce entropy. You can't trap heat. You can't trap light. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy never decreases.

r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is the emissivity constant (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

On 3 October 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Spongy Iris:
Not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd of thermodynamics is e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. The system must be consistent and definable. In other words, closed. It does not need to be isolated. CO2 is not a source of energy and cannot override the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are now also denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

On 8 September 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Pete Rogers:
There is no 2nd law requirement for equality of temperature. The 2nd law states: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

On 10 July 2020 Into the Night responded directly to Duncan:

Into the Night wrote:[quote]duncan61 wrote:Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future

Not my definition.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, entropy must increase or stay the same in any given system.

On 9 June Into the Night responded directly to tmiddles:

tmiddles wrote:
I understand the 1st LTD as a zero sum equation,

No it is not. It is e(t+1)=e(t)+w.

On 20 May 2020 Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. Giving a direction for heat and energy flow, energy will always dissipate if it dissipates at all. It will NEVER gather together. The system must be closed (defined consistently). The Universe that we observe is a closed system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been falsified. You are just choosing to ignore it. Mantra 20a2.

On 19 May Into the Night responded directly to Evald:
Science is not an agency. It is not a government, university, credential, degree, or license. It is not any society, academy, or institution. It is not any political organization at all. It is not scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Examples are Newton's law of motion: F=mA, or Gauss's law, describing electrostatic force: F=C*(r1+r2)/r^2, of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, describing the amount of light emitted by substance according to its temperature: r=C*e*t^4.

None of these have anything to do with any organization, government, university, or even the scientist(s) that created these theories (other than historical purposes). Each of these theories of science stand on or fall on their own, independent of any scientist or person.

Magical machines to 'purify' CO2 or any other gas is marketing hype. You fell for it completely. CO2 is already pure CO2. There is nothing impure about CO2.

It is also not possible to warm the Earth with any gas or vapor. No gas or vapor has such a capability. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)-W. You need not worry about CO2, methane, or any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.

On 6 May 2020 Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:

JackFou wrote:
I just disagree with you about what they actually say.

Newton's law of motion: F=mA
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
That is what they say. You are trying to change these equations. You are trying to deny them.

On 6 May Into the Night responded directly to JackFou:
Define 'global warming'.
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

On 15 November 2020 IBDaMann responded directly to Duncan:

duncan61 wrote:I agree with Svante August Arrhenius and Freeman dyson.

This is unfortunate because all of their work on the matter was shown to be wrong, their conclusions shown to be false, and their models pertaining to what you are referencing discarded from the body of science.

There is no Arrhenius law or any Dyson equation in physics that relates to this subject. This, and because they are deceased and cannot be questioned, is why only scientifically illiterate warmizombies herald Arrheius and Dyson as champions of their religion and as prophets of their faith. Scientists rarely have any reason to ever reference them.

This is the problem you run into when you are forced to point to people (clergy) and not to actual science. Science is not people. Science is not subjective and is not based on anyone's opinion. Nobody owns science.

If you are allowing others to do your thinking for you because you are too lazy to independently learn the subject matter in question then you deserve to be manipulated as you are being right now by whomever told you to worship Arrhenius and Dyson as prophets of Greenhouse Effect.

In physics, CO2 does not have the magical superpowers to violate physics as you seem to believe. No body of matter anywhere in the universe under any conditions (and this includes the earth) can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. You learned this when you were a child. You instinctively know that things don't just get hotter without some new energy entering the picture. Yet somehow you allowed others to convince you that your thinking is wrong and to let them do your thinking for you properly.

You committed an error when you allowed that to happen.

duncan61 wrote: By some freak of nature he got it right back then.CO2 does reflect long wave radiation.

Let's review the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can change form all day, all night, all week, all year ... but you can never create any more of it and you can never destroy any of it, i.e. you always have the same amount of energy.

So then some warmizombies come along and tell you that long wave radiation changes form in the upper stratosphere, and then changes form in the lower troposphere, and then it changes form again, and again, and again and suddenly you have more energy than when you started and temperature increases. And you bought it. You never called bullshit. That was your next error.

duncan61 wrote: Without an Atmosphere our weather would be different.

We wouldn't have any weather if we had no atmosphere.

duncan61 wrote: We would cook in the sunlight and freeze at night like the moon

Yes, the daytime oceans would boil away. Yes. All without any CO2. Go on.

duncan61 wrote:The small amount of trace gas has little to no effect

Actually, it just has no effect. There is no "little" effect that it can have (re: 1st law of thermodynamics).

On 3 March 2020 IBDaMann responded directly to James__:
The 1st LoT actually doesn't mention work. Equations that involve work are simply derivatives from the 1st LoT.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so a given quantity remains constant, i.e. Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1)

However, we humans like to break things out and represent all elements in our systems. We particularly like to point to work performed and say that we are concerned with that particular energy. Since we must adhere to the 1st LoT, we derive our constraints:

Total_Energy(t) = Work(t) + Nonwork(t) (or however we want to divide it up)

... or ...

Initial_Energy = Final_Energy + Work_Performed

The number of equations is infinite; it just depends on how you represent your experiment such that it adheres to Total_Energy(t) = Total_Energy(t+1)

This will be enough for now.

For additional reference you can always find this information on Politiplex. Avail yourself.

Blackbody Science
Stefan-Boltzmann
1st Law of Thermodynamics
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Electrical Reference
If you need a quick Periodic Table of the Elements
Understand Schroedinger's Cat

In summary, Duncan, you are a liar who no longer cares how absurd his lies have become. Tell us again how you have been on this site for a year and have never seen any of the above. Detail for us how you couldn't possibly have looked up any of these quotes and references listed.

Whenever any counterargument destroys your religious dogma you simply deny that the point was ever raised. You have made self-delusion your top priority in saving your religion ... even to the extent that whenever the required lie is so outrageous that you cannot sufficiently delude yourself into believing it, you simply bend over furniture for Pete Rogers so that he can aid you by doing your thinking for you. Until Pete does that for you, you dishonestly EVADE all substantive questions posed to you.

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
RQAA doesn't demonstrate anything.

You don't need demonstrating of anything. Your question has already been answered multiple times. Stop asking the same question over and over.

I have been on this forum over a year and have not seen anyone post any of the laws that are claimed.I have researched them myself but as google and the dictionary are wrong where do I go from here

keepit wrote:gfm, There have been postings

keepit wrote: ... but i've never seen the actual laws

keepit wrote: AND the correct interpretation of them.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
There have been postings of the names of the laws but i've never seen the actual laws AND the correct interpretation of them.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
There have been postings of the names of the laws but i've never seen the actual laws AND the correct interpretation of them.

keepit wrote:
First off, almost everything is an interpretation.

keepit wrote:
Secondly, a very high percentage of the things i say on this website are misinterpreted.

keepit wrote:
That being the case, it isn't reasonable to think that the "interpreters" are any good at interpreting and applying laws of physics.