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 7 Aug 2007 23:03 On Aug 7, 10:15 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > On Aug 4, 6:29 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > The effect of CO2 retaining thermal frequencies and causing higher > > temperatures cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. > > Hey Mr. Short-Term-Memory, you forgot this already!!:kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > There is no laboratory measurements of temperature affect from > > concentrations of CO2. Except the hoax exhibit encased in glass or > > similar material > > "The stream passes through the optical filter, which blocks all > wavelengths except those that CO2 absorbs. The filtered infrared > energy strikes the detector and causes it to heat up. When CO2 is > drawn through the sampling cell by the D-TEK CO2's internal pump, some > of the infrared energy is absorbed by the CO2. This causes a decrease > in the amount of infrared energy reaching the detector and a > corresponding drop in the detector's temperature, which triggers the D- > TEK CO2 to alarm. This whole process takes a fraction of a second."http://www.inficon.com/download/en/D-TEK_CO2.pdfhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ed5692a3d63a22a1 Heat is a quantity. Temperature is not. So where is CO2 retaining heat energy in an energy system and causing higher temperature? Your basic dishonesty causes you to ignore the definitions of your words and to draw conclusions from your own inadequate definitions. All molecules radiate in the continous spectra of the infrared. All molecules have bands of low transmission. But overall ratio of absorption to emission is not affected and Kirchoffs theorem remains valid which states that ratio of absorption to emission is due to the temperature and not the substance. This is a very important principle of thermodynamics since it means all substances reach the same temperature at equilibrium. But interest or availability of valid and complete analyses is beyond you so you attempt to draw false conclusions from a narrow piece of observed evidence. KDeatherage
From: kdthrge on 7 Aug 2007 23:15 On Aug 7, 1:22 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" <LynchTheBushTria...(a)AngryMob.com> wrote: > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > You would agree that the energy of a parabolic orbit is for most > > purposes equivelent to the gravitation. > > "Gravitation" is not energy. Dimwhit. Gravitation is at best a force and > energy is expressed as a force multiplied by the distance overwhich the > force operates. > > The total energy of a gravitationally bound system is equal to -GM/2a > where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit. > > Your claim that equal energy = equal area is equivalent to saying that > equal area is equal semi-major axis, which is clearly not true. Rhetorical statements you can not break down into viable mechanics or mathematics. When energy is used to contradict motion, the energy is lost and converted to heat as is the kinetic energy that is abated. This energy is not stored. But that would be physics instead of the semantics used to support false mechanical truths you wish to believe. Mean orbital velocity denotes energy of the orbit. The mean orbital velocity and area of the orbit, or a radial vector, must be equivelent to the strength of the gravitational field. The force of gravity decreases and increases as an inverse square to distance. Greater area of the orbit has greater average distance from the gravitational source. KDeatherage
From: Eric Gisse on 7 Aug 2007 23:18 On Aug 7, 6:51 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 7, 5:45 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 9:18 am, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 8:10 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 12:57 pm, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > You're just weighing moonbeams here. There is no evidence that we've had a > > > > > statistically significant rise in temperature. It's impossible to know how > > > > > much bias may have been inadvertently introduced to the world's temperature > > > > > data. Don't buy into the propaganda that pretends to ignore this > > > > > statistical fact. > > > > > Nothing is true! Science is false! Everything is subject to unknown > > > > bias! You can never be sure of physical measurements! Find your trust > > > > in the Lord! > > > > Science is complex. Find a new hobby. > > l> Yes, it is complex. That is why stupid people have a hard time with > it. > > Science is more than repitition of invalid concepts. Your whining about how wrong science is...on a computer. Proof enough that you are stupid. [snip remainder, unread]
From: kdthrge on 7 Aug 2007 23:38 On Aug 7, 10:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 6:51 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 5:45 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 9:18 am, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 7, 8:10 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 6, 12:57 pm, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > You're just weighing moonbeams here. There is no evidence that we've had a > > > > > > statistically significant rise in temperature. It's impossible to know how > > > > > > much bias may have been inadvertently introduced to the world's temperature > > > > > > data. Don't buy into the propaganda that pretends to ignore this > > > > > > statistical fact. > > > > > > Nothing is true! Science is false! Everything is subject to unknown > > > > > bias! You can never be sure of physical measurements! Find your trust > > > > > in the Lord! > > > > > Science is complex. Find a new hobby. > > > l> Yes, it is complex. That is why stupid people have a hard time with > > it. > > > Science is more than repitition of invalid concepts. > > Your whining about how wrong science is...on a computer. Proof enough > that you are stupid. > Dynes and ergs, irritated eric. You are only proving that despite your continual claim to be educated in physics, you are inept. You are really funny. Perhaps you expect me to outline the mathematics so you can memorize or copy and paste. Perhaps you are too used to cheating and plagerizing to do your own objective analyses. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha hahahcrackpothahahirritatederichahahahahaha Theoretical science is a joke. Because it is run by dishonest and frustrated schoolboys who have no attachment to reality and who live in some narcissistic fantasy of their own intellectual superiority. This world of rhetoric and dogma has nothing to do with actual science. KDeatherage
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Aug 2007 00:02
On Aug 7, 7:38 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [snip idiocy] Obviously the irony of whining about physics on a computer whose semiconductor innards were designed with the rules of quantum mechanics is lost upon you. |