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: Jonathan Kirwan on 2 Aug 2007 21:02 On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:38:02 -0700, kdthrge(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??? No, it's all about your silly claim about energy and area of orbits and your obvious lack of experience and brazenness despite it, in this subject area. Fortunately for you, there are some people reading this group who can walk you through the details, if you'd care to learn. Of course... that would require some effort on your part. ><snip> >Laying out the rhetoric. Thy dogma has been insulted. Thou must attack >the heretic. ><snip> So says every crackpot without any clue what they are talking about. Tell you what. Put your comments in the form of developed equations, which I already know is beyond your ken, crafting them to show your point well to someone who can read the math, be prepared to defend them, and we can talk. Until then, you are just another crackpot without a clue making hand-waving claims about things they know very little about and only imagine quite otherwise. I think I already know that you cannot manage the math. In any case, you are quite simply wrong about your claimed and unshown relationship between energy and elliptical areas. If you want to perseverate on that some more, go ahead. But it won't make a tiddly difference to nature, which is immune to your rantings on the subject. I've pretty much decided now that you cannot comment on any subject that requires fluency in mathematics. You did yourself your own damage on that score. And you have some work to do, if you want anyone to take you seriously on any subject about science. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 2 Aug 2007 21:33 On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:01:42 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>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. > >It doesn't obey Newtonian physics? Mind supporting your latest spew >with some actual evidence? I'd always thought of Newtonian physics as being the definition of 'classical.' I suppose, because I was brought up at a time when Einstein was the "new physics" of the day. ;) Although I can whip out a derivation of the special theory of relativity using only algebra and do it on a couple of pages from memory and scratch in a few minutes, I do have trouble with learning string theory right now. I'm still stuck studying Lie groups and algebras. However, Kent only has one oar in the water generally and no oar at all with math. Jon
From: z on 3 Aug 2007 12:28 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.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 12:58 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuckier(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. Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 13:03
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? 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. with all the attendant positive > feedbacks that naturally exist in the mix, as well. > > Jon |