AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: kdthrge on 4 Aug 2007 06:05 On Aug 2, 8:01 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:38 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 3:07 am, Jonathan Kirwan : > > > > >: --> Kent wrote: > > > >: Orbits of lesser area have greater energy. This is where your > > > >: anlalyses is defunct and where the other idiots of theoretical science > > > >: like yourself, will not listen to reason, just as yourself, and in > > > >: their idiocy, dominate the academics of theoretical science. > > > > Listening to reason is listening to rigorous theory and a quantitative > > > deduction to specifics via math. Eric tried that path without effect. > > > It's very hard to reason with remorseless ignorance. > > > So all of this in order for you to answer the question of what happens > > if an object in orbit is accelerated in the direction of it's > > motion??? > > > Your answer is simple. From a simple mind without any valid mechanics > > of motion. Taken from the fools of theoretical physics. From theory > > derived from classical physics which does not even respect Newtonian > > physics. > l> It doesn't obey Newtonian physics? Mind supporting your latest spew > with some actual evidence? Your theory of orbital mechanics believes in radial or circular momentum. This is what you mean when you say," angular momentum is conserved". One of the most basic principles of Newton is that an object in motion will travel in a straight line until the application of some force changes this. If this basic principle of Newton is obeyed, one discovers that the fact that orbits of of less area have greater energy. KDeatherage
From: kdthrge on 4 Aug 2007 06:25 On Aug 3, 11:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars > in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed > 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on > the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the > atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a > temperature rise, back then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be > driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes > away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the > __lead__ in a rise in temperature, with all the attendant positive > feedbacks that naturally exist in the mix, as well. > That is funny. You work your logic to satisfy your superstition. There is record of relative changes in CO2 levels in the ice cores. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS OF ANY EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE. When one is attempting to determine cause and effect, it is a very important point that the temperature preceeds the CO2. This shows that the temperature change is very probably causing CO2 changes. Careful studies have determined the lapse to be about 900 yrs. The important point also is that when the CO2 levels begin to rise, there is no indication of effect on temperature gradient whatsoever. In any of the ice cores there are differences in the readings even in the same ice core. But even with your allowance for choosing the data you wish, it is clear that CO2 increases AFTER temperature increase. Studies have also failed to show methane increases at the time of temperature increases. The point is that you have no scientific evidence of CAUSE AND EFFECT from the ice cores. So go ahead twist your little mentality and it's beliefs in order to IGNORE THIS DATA. KDeatherage
From: kdthrge on 4 Aug 2007 06:29 On Aug 3, 12:12 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars > >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed > >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on > >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the > >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a > >> temperature rise, back then. > > >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? > > Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the > natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. > > > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be > >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes > >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the > >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, > > >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. > l> Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with l> understanding or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, l> I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is l> plenty of reasoning available that is very strong and better than any l> other reasoning presented so far. > When astronomers look at the solar spectrum, there is evidence of all the elements that exist on earth in the composition of the sun. This is considered good scientific theory because these emission and absorption lines can be duplicated in the laboratory. The effect of CO2 retaining thermal frequencies and causing higher temperatures cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Only in the fantasies of the overgrown schoolboys who enjoy their scaremongering despite any actual science on this matter. KDeatherage CO2 Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help.
From: claudiusdenk on 4 Aug 2007 12:25 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... > My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years > lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't > determinative. Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer the question you evasive twit.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Aug 2007 12:33
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:29:54 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: ><snip> >When astronomers look at the solar spectrum, there is evidence of all >the elements that exist on earth in the composition of the sun. This >is considered good scientific theory because these emission and >absorption lines can be duplicated in the laboratory. Actually, observation depends on theory but is NOT theory, itself. It's just observational result. Different things, entirely. You can't even write two sentences together that make any combined sense. >The effect of CO2 retaining thermal frequencies and causing higher >temperatures cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Only in the >fantasies of the overgrown schoolboys who enjoy their scaremongering >despite any actual science on this matter. You can't even paste a few words together right. What exactly, Kent, is a "thermal frequency?" Oh, well. There is no hope with you. You will remain forever in a fog. Too bad. But some animals cannot be helped. Jon |