Belief Driven Physics
Observation and experimentation establish our beliefs in what is true and what is false. However, how we interpret what we observe is also determined by what we believe. The more evidence we find supporting our beliefs the greater our conviction that what we believe is true.
This presents a problem when evidence is encountered that conflicts with what we believe to be true. We must either resolve the apparent conflict or refine our beliefs to account for the aberration.
Because we tend to have a lot of evidence to support our existing beliefs there is a tendency to accept any explanation for the aberration rather than change our beliefs.
This resistance to admitting error and changing often leads to the ignoring of contrary evidence producing belief driven physics.
An example of this is our concept of energy. The only way we can observe energy is when it interacts with matter and becomes kinetic energy. This causes the mistaken belief that kinetic energy and energy behave in the same manner. If we walk around an object it will continue to radiate energy to our eyes in the form of light because energy from the object goes in all directions, not just one.
The color or wavelength of energy coming from the object can change depending on what light is absorbed by the object and what light is reflected or emitted by it but the energy normally flows in all directions. It is possible to make the energy flow in one direction, as in a spot light or laser, but this does not change the amount of energy being emitted.
A clear glass object will transmit visible light allowing us to see what is behind it but it will not transmit ultraviolet light. If the glass is a solid (crystal) it will not only transmit visible light but also ultraviolet. This shows that how an object interacts with energy depends on the structure (bonds) forming the object.
Since the fundamental beliefs of physics are that energy cannot be created or destroyed and energy flows from greater energy to lower energy there is also a belief that this also applies to the flow of kinetic energy and heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a hotter object. This is not true since kinetic energy is a function of both mass and energy.
When a fast small car collides with the rear end of a slower larger truck in front of it, the speed of the car will not increase just because the truck has greater kinetic energy. It will slow down as energy (v^2) is transferred to the truck and the truck’s speed increases. An object with lower kinetic energy (cooler) can add energy to an object with greater kinetic energy (hotter).
Climate science holds that because the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not have a structure that’s absorbs visible or infrared light that they are not absorbing energy being radiated from the sun and are being heated by the surface of the Earth. This is a fallacy.
The bonds of the gas molecules causes them to absorb shorter wavelength (uv) emitted by the sun which they convert to kinetic energy. This kinetic energy, along with the visible light emitted by the sun, is absorbed by molecules on the Earth’s surface increasing its kinetic energy making it hotter. As long as the gas molecules have greater velocity/energy than the molecules in the object they are striking they will transfer energy to the object.
The thermometer measures the kinetic energy of objects striking it. The temperature of the atmosphere, as measured by the thermometer, decreases with increasing altitude. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules, as determined by the universal gas law (PV<- nrt), increases with increased altitude showing that the decrease of temperature is a result of fewer molecules (less mass) transferring energy to the thermometer not an increase in the energy of the gas molecules.
The surface of the Earth is not heating the atmosphere. The CO2 molecules are not blocking heat from escaping from the Earth’s surface since they have more energy than the molecules on the Earth’s surface and are transferring energy to it. This will all become apparent in the grand solar minimum when the uv light that heats the atmosphere decreases resulting in less heat from the atmosphere heating the Earth.
One place where there is an ignoring of contrary evidence is in our concept of water. When energy is added to 0 C ice there is no change in the kinetic energy until 80 calories/gram have been added. The energy being added is being absorbed internally changing the crystal structure into a liquid. As more energy is added to the water the temperature of the water increases some, but most of the added energy is being absorbed as internal energy creating internal structures and not registering on the thermometer.
Water is a liquid crystal (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of Water”) and as infrared radiation is added to the water its liquid crystal structure grows. When the water reaches 100 C the temperature then remains constant as the absorbed energy begins to break down the crystal structure that has been created. It takes 540 calories/gram to destroy this second crystal structure of water and convert it to a gas.
Steam (gaseous water) does not exist below 100 C and water in the atmosphere is in the form of liquid crystal micro droplets (James McGinn). These crystals form as absorbed infrared energy splits the water molecule into a negatively charged hydroxyl ion and a positively charged hydrogen ion.
The negative hydroxyl ion combines with other water molecules to produce a negatively charge crystal shell. This crystal shell contains the positively charged liquid hydronium ion formed when the hydrogen ion (proton) combines with a water molecule. It is the negative charge of the outer shell of the water crystal that causes evaporated water to rise in the atmosphere.
What evidence is there to support this theory of water? The rate of change of temperature depends on the difference in temperature between an object and the surrounding temperature. The greater the difference the faster heat will flow.
If you take a container of room temperature water and a container containing an equal amount of boiled water then put them in a freezer, the container containing the boiled water will freeze first. Somehow even when the boiled water reaches the same temperature as the room temperature water it is still able to lose energy faster.
The reason this ridiculous observation is true is because the boiled water has had the internal crystal structures destroyed and the internal energy doesn’t need to be overcome before converting the water into ice crystals.
Einstein said that no amount of experiments could prove him right but that one experiment could prove him wrong. For the believers this has come to mean that no amount of experiments can prove him right and nothing can prove him wrong. For believers all evidence supports their beliefs.
If you look at a chart for the slowing of time for satellites at different altitudes, it shows that the slowing of time (atomic clocks) increases as altitude increases. Since both the speed of the satellites and gravity decreases with increasing distance from the Earth this should be proof that Einstein’s contention that the slowing of time occurs with increasing speed is wrong. Instead believers have taken any time dilation as proof that Einstein’s theories of relativity are correct.
Why would time slow with increasing altitude? The problem is in the treatment of light as kinetic energy (photon) instead of as a wave.
The speed of a wave is determined by the strength of the medium in which it travels and only a particle can have a constant speed. The medium that a light wave travels in is the electric and magnetic fields emitted by objects. As the fields emitted by the Earth decrease with increasing altitude the velocity of the waves will also decrease.
Atomic clocks work by using radio waves (electromagnetic energy) to cause cesium to resonate at a constant frequency. If the energy stimulating the cesium decreases, the frequency it emits will decrease and the clock will slow.
Belief driven science is the antithesis of real science and one must be willing to examine the evidence that is the source of any disagreement.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You began: “Observation and experimentation establish our beliefs in what is true and what is false.”
No, observations or experimental results are the truth. The history of science shows these observations or experimental results can absolutely prove an scientific idea to be false (not possibly true). So, until there is this observation or experimental result which proves any scientific idea which we tend to ‘believe could be the truth, we must continue to believe it could be the truth but we (real scientists) certainly do not claim any scientific idea is the ‘truth’.
For real SCIENCE has a rule: To qualify as a scientific idea the idea must predict something that is not yet known (believed according to you comment). For the idea must identify what observation or experimental result could prove it absolutely false.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
H Herb,
And again I find I haven’t proofread, or proofread well. So the long sentence “So, until there is this observation or experimental result which proves any scientific idea which we tend to ‘believe could be the truth, we must continue to believe it could be the truth but we (real scientists) certainly do not claim any scientific idea is the ‘truth’.” should have been: So, until there is this observation or experimental result which proves any scientific idea to be absolutely false, we must continue to believe it could be the truth. But we (real scientists) certainly do not claim any scientific idea to be the absolute ‘truth’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Chris
| #
You said that the Earth doesn’t heat the atmosphere. That is wrong. A simple observation of a ir heater shows us that it is indeed conduction that warms the atmosphere, not radiant heat.
Looking at the heater from the side and you’ll notice waves coming up from the heater. Follow the light away from the heater and no such waves are present. Put your hand in the path of the light and your hand will get warmer. Could burn if you’re close enough. Is it the air heating your hand, no. It’s the radiant heat that hasn’t been absorbed by the atmosphere.
So the sun shines down onto the Earth and it warms up. The cooler atmosphere absorbs the heat. Yes some uv and ir will be absorbed into the atmosphere but the lion share is from conduction.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Chris,
You maintain the atmosphere does not absorb energy from the sun. In the stratosphere oxygen molecules are split forming ozone molecules. It takes 450,000 joules/mole to split the double bond of an oxygen molecule.Do you really believe this energy is coming from the surface of the Earth?
Herb
Reply
Chris
| #
No i didn’t. I said that most of the temp in the atmosphere is through conduction from the surface. Some will be absorbed by uv and ir but not nearly as much. Breaking these bonds doesn’t result in a lot of warmth to the atmosphere, demonstrated by the fact that it is cold up there. An experiment needs to be done where a room with a uv lamp is on. See how much the temp rises above a similar one without a lamp. I have ir heaters at home, I’ve never heard of a uv heater.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Chris,
When a mole of O2 absorbs that 450,000 joules and splits what happens to the energy? The top of the stratosphere is hotter than the top of the troposphere which is where the primary means of energy transfer is conduction. In the rest of the atmosphere most energy transfer is by radiation..
Herb
Reply
Chris
| #
Yet we don’t have uv heaters. I understand that I can get a sunburn from uv, but that kind of burn isn’t due to temp. Energy has no mass and so it can leave an atom and bounce around without increasing the temp because not all energy is heat energy. To be heat it has to raise the temp of material. UV might raise it some but not much other wise we would have uv heaters.
Herb Rose
| #
Chris,
Any attempt to get you to think just results in you becoming dumber.
Chris
| #
Or perhaps you haven’t been convincing yet. If you can satisfy what I said then I will change my mind. Perhaps you’re just falling for believing in physics instead of seeing what’s there. If I said something that is wrong, point it out. Name calling makes you an idiot.
Herb Rose
| #
Chris,
When you are driving in a small car and there is a large slower truck in front what do you do? If your car won’t accelerate fast enough to allow you to pass the truck in the space available, you need to accelerate and crash into the rear of the truck. Since the truck has greater kinetic energy than your car it will transfer energy to your car, slowing as it loses energy, and increasing your velocity so you can get around it. Take Alan with you.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Chris,,
I demonstrate time again how stupid I am.
“Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”. (The publisher, Louis Elzevir, of Galileo’s classic book as translated by Crew and de Salvio)
You wrote: “It’s the radiant heat that hasn’t been absorbed by the atmosphere.”
Is ‘radiant heat’ an accurate definition of the infrared (IR) radiation that hasn’t been absorbed by the atmosphere. And what part of the atmosphere might be absorbing the IR radiation. Herb has written that he, with James McGinn, does not believe that there are water molecules in the atmosphere. Instead they claim that all the water of atmosphere is found in tiny droplets of liquid water. Which meteorologists consider are always present in the atmosphere so that the atmosphere is never super-saturated with gaseous water molecules.
For meteorologists believe that C.T.R. Wilson, working with his famous expansion cloud chamber proved that the atmosphere (natural air) tiny dense particle (either solid or liquid) could be removed from the atmosphere so that this ‘tiny particle free atmoshere could become supersaturated with water molecules (a non-equilibrium condition. And obviously the results of Wilson’s experimentation supported the idea that the atmosphere did contain water molecules.
Now here I used the verb supported instead of proved because it was an idea of Herb and James because their idea was not an observed fact. For I consider the observation, that the sun rises in the east each morning and sets in the west each evening where I have always lived to be an observed fact which cannot be questioned until there is some observation which contradicts the previous observations.
So, to come back to my question: What in the atmosphere might absorb IR radiation? I propose it could be the tiny liquid or solid particles (condensed matter) as well as the gaseous molecules of the atmosphere.
We must accurately define the system we are studying if we can ever intuitively understand (explain) it..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You observe the sun rising in the east and setting in the west so that is what you believe to be true. I think that it is actually you moving to the east that produces you observation.
Have a good day,
Herb
Chris
| #
There are some gases that’ll absorb ir. There is solids in the air, like dust. They will absorb some. But of course if the temp of these objects is lower. I know that the ir passes through the air because I can feel the warmth of the sun on my face. I also know that not much radiant heat is absorbed by the air. But I can observe the air getting hotter from conduction rather than radiant like I had said earlier.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Your comment at 8:51pm makes my day. My point was that observations were facts and not ideas (theories). Phenomena that which can often be seen like sunrises and sunsets, have to be explained. And any explanations must be someone’s idea (hypothesis, theory). The observation is the factual evidence one is trying to explain.
Galileo made a telescope which allowed him to see what could not be seen with the ‘naked eye’. That Mars and Venus has phases like our moon (another observation which needs an explanation). And that the planet Jupiter had satellites which orbited it and which contradicted the old idea that everything in the universe orbited the Earth.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan
| #
Not this rubbish again. Principia Scientific is becoming an unreliable source of information.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Bloody hell, that was terrible. Some of my brain cells committed suicide in protest.
Reply
Glenn B.
| #
Alan,
Thanks for your comment and sentiment. Sometimes I feel your pain. For me though, it is those that I most profoundly disagree with at places like PS who teach me the most. What they say makes me question; makes me think. And I get to read the reply’s of so many smart respondents, like yourself.
Example: Herb wrote “When a fast small car collides with the rear end of a slower larger truck in front of it, the speed of the car will not increase just because the truck has greater kinetic energy. It will slow down…” This analogy appeared flawed to me. Incomplete.
This, to me, was a two body problem of the truck and car – their before and after road speed was irrelevant. Neglected in the analogy was the third body… the Earth on which they drove. Either the analogy should only consider their motion relative to each other, or take into account the energy imparted on the Earth by their wheels, from when they accelerated from stationary. They both accelerated that much more massive body – the Earth – in the opposite direction when they sped up. And we haven’t even considered their temperature differences. Or the quantity of individual atoms within the car or truck, and the energy gained or lost by them, individually, just the combined totals.
Considering “beliefs” that Herb correctly talks about, are not there three levels to understanding? The data (facts, observations), Descriptions, and Explanations. Its the latter we so often get wrong.
To me, we often witness folk thinking deeply in these articles and comments. However, isn’t it our ability to think clearly that’s really critical, both here and in life? And its the flaws in clear thinking that is most illuminating to me within these pages. And, the clarifications of others. It has changed who I am.
Thank you all, Glenn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Glenn,
I picked the analogy of the car because I thought people would relate to reality and know that in such a collision the car will slow down.
For those for whom extraneous factors cause confusion I can do it with math.
Object A has a mass of z (units whatever you choose) and a velocity of 100m/s. Its momentum is 100 zm/s and its kinetic energy is 5000 zm^2s^-2. In front of A traveling in the same direction is B with a mass of 200 z and a velocity of 10m/s. Its momentum is 200 zm/s and its kinetic energy is 10000 zm^2s^-2. In an elastic collision when A strikes B, momentum will be conserved (mv(A) + mv(B) = mv (A + B)) and distributed to the 2 masses. A will have a velocity of .5 m/s and kinetic energy of .25 zm^2s^-2 while B will have a velocity of 10.5 m/s and kinetic energy of 11025 zm^2s^-2.
Does that clarify things for you? The kinetic energy of the smaller object with less kinetic energy decreases while the kinetic energy of the larger object with greater kinetic energy increases.
Herb
Reply
Glenn B.
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.
My question is: Why complicate the analogy by having the two vehicles traveling along a road? Why not just say “An object of mass z collides with an object of mass 200z, at 90m/s…” and take it from there? Is there a purpose in adding that extra layer?
I note, the way you define the momentum is in relation to a stationary object (a tree, brick wall) and not to each other.
Are you saying anything more profound than “If you were walking in front of me, and I pushed you in the back, you would stumble forward.”? Sorry Herb, but I don’t get it. Sure, if I push you in the back you will have more kinetic energy, but what is significant about that? You are only talking about kinetic energy relative to the pavement.
What I would like to know is, after that collision, how you come to the simple conclusion that “The kinetic energy of the smaller object with less kinetic energy decreases while the kinetic energy of the larger object with greater kinetic energy increases.” as a definitive statement? Isn’t that statement incomplete? Shouldn’t you be adding … relative to…? And not relative to each other, surely?
I don’t feel your analogy demonstrates that cold objects can make warm objects warmer, for example.
You are making me think though, so thanks Herb.
Regards
Glenn
Reply
Glenn B.
| #
Hi Herb,
I have thought on this some more, and maybe I’m starting to get it.
Lets take your car – truck analogy and reverse the vehicles. The large truck now runs into the back of the car, while traveling down a road. Will the low kinetic energy car (relative to the truck) still add energy to the high kinetic energy truck, while reducing its own? No.
This is a three body problem of car, truck, both relative to the road (Earth). Everything you describe is relative to the road (the Earth). The analogy collapses if you take that away.
Yet, when it comes to the conclusion the road (Earth) disappears from consideration. Only the energy of the truck and car are considered (as in a cold object warming a warmer one), with no mention of any relativity to the road.
As an analogy it can only be a two body problem (truck and car), or a three body problem (truck, car and road). I feel its wrong to start with one then transition to the other.
I understand that the analogy is likely not yours Herb, and you are just repeating it (I’m definitely Not accusing you of this) but isn’t this an example of what is described as a “bate and switch”.
More importantly, I believe this is an example of why we need to think clearly, rather than just deeply. Something I need to get better at.
Thanks Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Glenn,
The analogy of the truck and car is inaccurate in that there never is an elastic collision where we see conservation of energy. There is the crumpling of metal and heat produced.
The idea that if two objects with equal energy collide head on they will not come to a stop (destruction of energy) but recoil with the same speed in opposite direction is not something we experience and difficult to believe for some. With a rear end collision people will know that the smaller vehicle will slow.
The reason I didn’t put units in the math is because it can be used for molecules suspended in the air where elastic collision occur. A faster moving gas molecule can transfer energy to a larger one with no permanent deformation or loss of energy other than the kinetic energy of the molecules.
When dealing with basic physics it is necessary to try and isolate the causes for the effect we observe. For some the idea that gravity acts on all objects equally is difficult to accept because they observe heavier objects falling faster. Only when air resistance is eliminated do we see a feather fall at the same speed as a rock.
The physics is usually hidden in the observation.
Herb
Glenn B.
| #
That’s okay Herb, if you don’t want to address my questions or observations. I never wanted to make you feel uncomfortable. Sometimes we are just not ready.
I do feel you (and Jerry) have helped me get my head around some things. So thanks. Others will fill in the gaps.
Just as an observation, you said “With a rear end collision people will know that the smaller vehicle will slow.” I have seen enough break-check videos of trucks running up the back of cars to know that is not the case. Perhaps, after they apply the breaks, as their crumpled car hurtles down the road.
Perhaps you meant to say “With a rear end collision the rear vehicle slows… and sometimes that is the smaller vehicle.” I learnt that from you analogy.
Cheers, Glenn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Glenn,
The conservation of momentum and energy apply to all collisions. The reason I picked a small car driving into a larger vehicle is because it best illustrates these laws. In order for an object to have an increase in kinetic energy it must have an increase in velocity since its mass does not change. If there were a conservation. of kinetic energy then when the small car (less kinetic energy) strikes the truck (greater kinetic energy) its velocity must increase which is impossible because there is a large slow truck preventing it from going faster.
The equalization of energy does not mean an equalization of masses and kinetic energy is a function of both mass and energy.
I don’t know how to make what I’m trying to communicate to you any clearer but I’ve enjoyed the exchange with you and will try thinking of a different approach.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just admitted that in the collision that ‘heat’ is produced. But this I assume you are admitting that the temperature of some of the matter involved is increased. Do you believe that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms that constitute all matter? And in an actual collision do you see pieces of the two vehicles laying on the ground some distance from the major mass of the vehicles involved?
You cannot admit that something is not true and then go on as if it is true.
And Herb and Glenn, if you read the English translation of Galileo’s ‘Dialogues’, you might find you having a real dialogue like that Galileo just imaged.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have said the analogy is not accurate in that there is other energy loss which is not the case when molecules collide and there is an elastic collision.
In the math example insert the mass of a nitrogen molecule and consider the larger mass a larger gas molecule. All the energy is retained by the two molecules. The kinetic energy of the nitrogen molecule will decrease. The kinetic energy of the larger molecule will increase.
}Herb
Glenn B.
| #
Sorry to come back again Herb. I know you are responding to many others also. But now I’m confused.
You say: “…the analogy is not accurate in that there is other energy loss [with the vehicles] which is not the case when molecules collide and there is an elastic collision (I’m with you so far)…. insert the mass of a nitrogen molecule and consider the larger mass a larger gas molecule. All the energy is retained by the two molecules (Yes, okay). The kinetic energy (KE) of the nitrogen molecule will decrease. The kinetic energy of the larger molecule will increase (What?, why?)”
Firstly, in the vehicle analogy I understand that, in reality, a collision is a complex system and its hard to account for all the energy dispersal. But as you say above, “The conservation of momentum and energy apply to all collisions.” So, given its just an analogy, why not assume an elastic collision?
Secondly, are the nitrogen and “larger gas molecule” still traveling along a road? If so, in which direction? Must the nitrogen come up from behind, or would it work either way?
If you are inclined Herb, can you explain to me please how you come to the conclusion that the KE of the nitrogen decreases, while the other increases? How does that follow in an elastic collision?
I get that you say it does, but I don’t get how its a given. Is there an experiment one could conduct that could falsify this hypothesis?
Only reply if you want to Herb. Thanks either way.
Cheers, Glenn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Glenn,
Energy is conserved no matter the direction the molecules collide so the math applies to all collisions. Velocity is both direction and speed. When you have the two objects traveling in the same direction the conservation of momentum is a simple addition, In other collisions you need to use vector analysis. A same direction collision is easier to understand and shows the conservation of energy that occurs during any collision.
If you just read the math explanation and assume z is the mass of the nitrogen molecule the conservation of momentum will then provide the velocity (still traveling in the same direction) of the two molecules which will give you the kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) of the molecules. That shows the ke of the larger molecule increases and the ke of the nitrogen molecule decreases even though the nitrogen molecule started out with less ke than the larger molecule.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Glenn,
Totally agree with your first paragraph addressed to Alan. Now I intend to compose a comment relative to an experimental result posed by Herb and agreed to by James. Even though never offers an explanation that I can accept as being valid. My effort will take some time and I have some exercising I need to do first. So please be watching for it because I would like to read your ‘peer review) of what I wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Glenn and Herb,
Herb, I often consider that some of what you write should not be written because I ‘believe’ it is nonsense. Yet, a fact is that some of which you write I ‘believe’ is right on. And an observed fact (not a belief) is that your articles and comments produce many more comment (good or bad, depends upon what one believes) than my essays and comments have ever created.
And I consider your and Glenn’s discussion (conversation) is only positive for PSI readers who come to PSI to learn what SCIENCE is and not necessarily what the knowledge of SCIENCE actually is. For the knowledge of SCIENCE is never certain. What is certain is what is absolutely not the TRUTH.
Herb, somehow Glann got you to admit (write) the following. “The analogy of the truck and car is inaccurate in that there never is an elastic collision where we see conservation of energy. There is the crumpling of metal and heat produced.” Many a time I have fought back the urge to tell you almost word for word that you wrote. For what you wrote is what I learned from other scientists with achievements much more significant that anything you or I have done. Scientists like Einstein whose generally accepted achievements you seriously question.
In your analogy you began with the assumption that the collision was perfectly elastic. But it seems you knew that it could not be perfectly elastic and it seems Glenn has been trying to convince you that there are other factors which you seem to have overlooked.
But, I urge you both to keep your conversation going because who knows what we will learn by reading it.
Have I good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Glenn and maybe other PSI readers,
Galileo divided his ‘Dialogues’ into four days. At the end of the first day I read (as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio): “Salv: But, gentlemen, whither have we drifted during these many hours lured on by various problems and unexpected digressions. The day is already ended and we have scarcely touched the subject proposed for discussion. Indeed we have deviated so far that I remember with difficulty our early introduction and the little progress made in the way of hypotheses and principles for use in later demonstrations.
“Sagr: Let us then adjourn for to-day in order that our minds may find refreshment in sleep and that we may return tomorrow, if so please you, and resume the discussion of the main question.
“Salv: I shall not fail to be here to-morrow at the same hour, hoping not only render you service but also to enjoy your company”
PSI was founded for one primary reason. The founders doubted the validity of what is known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the idea of global warming and the idea of climate change which followed. Galileo wrote about the importance of simple observations. Yet, I find that few actual scientific observations and measurements are being considered.
I quoted from the Galileo’s ‘Dialogues’ because I urge you to examine the atmospheric sounding data observed after 4pm (local standard time) yesterday and after 4am this morning.
So I take this opportunity I correct what I have read over and over (here at PSI) that the atmosphere’s temperature decreases with increasing altitude. Which if you go to the link (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) and then review the data of SLE Salem{OR] for the soundings of 00Z22Nov 2020 and 12Z22Nov 2020 you will find what has been stated so many times here at PSI is absolutely not TRUE.
For we are experiencing ‘unique’ weather would could be said to be that of the climate of the mid-Willamette valley at this time of the year. Which if ones studies this data of only two soundings explains this climate according to general understandings of meteorology I have read. But which general understandings seem to be not commonly known (considered).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James: Herb, excellent article. And thanks for mentioning my thinking. However, I’m a little concerned that you indicate that I agree with Pollack’s liquid crystal structure notion of moisture in the atmosphere. I don’t. I just think that it is not gaseous. It’s liquid in my model. Not crystalline.
Also, the notion that ions of water can be formed so casually and without extenuating situational factors seems poorly considered.
Herb: Water is a liquid crystal (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of Water”) and as infrared radiation is added to the water its liquid crystal structure grows. When the water reaches 100 C the temperature then remains constant as the absorbed energy begins to break down the crystal structure that has been created.
James: This makes no sense. The reason boiled water won’t go above 100 C (at 1ATM pressure) is simply because of an increase in the rate of evaporation
Herb: If you take a container of room temperature water and a container containing an equal amount of boiled water then put them in a freezer, the container containing the boiled water will freeze first. Somehow even when the boiled water reaches the same temperature as the room temperature water it is still able to lose energy faster.
James: This is called the Mpemba effect. I can explain it. But to do so would require me to first explain some of my other advancements in H2O. And that is quite involved.
Herb: The reason this ridiculous observation is true is because the boiled water has had the internal crystal structures destroyed and the internal energy doesn’t need to be overcome before converting the water into ice crystals.
James: It’s not crystalline structure that gets destroyed. It’s the equivalence of the space between them that is interrupted. (The same phenomena underlies superchilled water.)
Herb: Belief driven science is the antithesis of real science and one must be willing to examine the evidence that is the source of any disagreement.\
James: I certainly agree with this last statement.
I am working on a series of videos on the subject of solving the anomalies of H2O. The first video was just completed yesterday:
Hydrogen Bonding in Water Solved
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “If you take a container of room temperature water and a container containing an equal amount of boiled water then put them in a freezer, the container containing the boiled water will freeze first.”
In this description of the experiment you have not accurately defined (described) what the containers are and what an ‘equal amount’ of boiled water is.
First, is the equal amount by volume or by mass? It should be by mass since we know the density of water near its boiling temperature is less that of water at room temperature (RT).
But more critical to understanding (explaining) the experimental result which you describe, is what the containers are. First I assume (to possibly achieve the reported result) the containers are placed in a closed space whose base and walls are cooled well (at least neg 10C) below the freezing point of water. Next, to achieve the result you described, I have to assume the containers are common glasses without any covers.
Now I expect you see where I am going. The boiling water will evaporate more rapidly than the room temperature water and the evaporation will cool the boiling water more rapidly than evaporation of the RT water. But the boiling water has much further to cool before it freezes, so the more rapid cooling is not a critical issue. What is the critical issue is how much boiling water remains once its temperature cools to the freezing temperature of water.
Now, I see the result you describe is the boiling water freezes first. Which is not well defined. For until I read this again I had been assuming the total amount of water in the glasses would become totally frozen. Now, I see it could be just the surface water which needs to freeze. But having seen this I see it might be water surface against the glass of the glass which freezes first.
But because of the greater evaporation of the boiling water, I am quite sure that the mass of the boiling water when it first freezes wherever will be significantly less than the mass of the RT water. Hence, this lesser mass could be the factor why the boiling water freezes first.
Now, I can propose an experiment which tests my explanation. After placing equal masses to the two different waters in the glasses. Place a film of polyethylene tightly over each glass so the evaporated water molecules cannot escape from the glasses. I would speculate that the RT water will freeze first. But there is no need to speculate. Just do the experiment as described (defined).
Which I am to lazy to do because I did propose the experiment. See I am peer reviewing Herb’s report of his experiment. And I question if he had actually done the original experiment of which he reported the result.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
It is called the Mpemba effect after the high school student who noticed it. If you don’t want to bother doing the experiment you can watch it demonstrated on videos.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Glenn B.
| #
Wow Jerry,
Thank you so much for that. (And to you Herb for your reply.) There is so much in your posts, that more eloquently demonstrates what I was attempting say in my reply to Alan.
In you post Jerry, and reply Herb, I see the two approaches to communicating ideas on these type of sites. And, I think, to communicating in science. And they are polar opposite approaches.
What you set out Jerry is a wonderful example of real science, in my view. You have a hypothesis, that explains the physical processes that may cause the cooler water to reach freezing first, and that in reality the laws of physics are not violated. And, that if the experiment is conducted with the proper controls – starting with the same mass, eliminating evaporation, etc – then the difference in freeze time will disappear.
But, more importantly, the way you laid it out is critical for everyone else. You “described” the processes at work, as you see them. You offered an “explanation”. Then you did what is required in science… you proposed an experiment than any of us could conduct that could falsify your hypothesis. (If one wanted to do the experiment, as you proposed, and the cool water still froze first, you would be wrong.)
Then, its up to the rest of us readers. We can read your hypothesis and consider the proposed experimental controls. Then, via the “clarity” of your lay out, simply agree. Or, we can conduct the experiment as proposed, and “discover” reality for ourselves.
Herb, you replied “It is called the Mpemba effect after the high school student who noticed it… ”
I’m not trying to have a go at you Herb. I really appreciate your contributions here. However, if I was being truthful, your reply comes across more as a “belief” to me. And given that’s the topic of your article I find that interesting.
Reading between the lines, you appear to be stating “The experiment has been done, it has a name, so believe it like me.” You made no attempt to draw the attention of the rest of us readers to the errors in Jerry’s logic or reasoning. Is not that more like a “belief” than “scientific skepticism”? Challenging Jerry’s logic or reasoning, explaining to me why he is wrong, is what would advance my understanding.
Underlying these two approaches to communicating are two philosophies to life, as I see it. One is the idea of wanting to learn, to grow one’s knowledge of where reality is. What is the objective truth? This approach welcomes being found to be wrong. It welcomes discovering error, and correcting. The other is wanting to hold on to current beliefs. Its wanting to be right, to win the argument, to defend our position (and often our identity with it). I think we all have a little of that in us, especially when our emotions are raised.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Herb if you think its a huge problem when we let our current beliefs prevent us from self-correcting and advancing our knowledge, both individually, and as a scientific community. My best friends offer me constructive criticism when they catch me doing the very thing I don’t like in others. I offer this in that spirit.
Thanks again to you both, Glenn
Reply
Glenn B.
| #
Sorry, I wrote cool and warm water back to front.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Glenn,
That is why I wanted to have a private email conversation with you.
But you discovered your problem yourself which is what good sceintist needs to do. I make many mistakes as some PSI readers know. And they urge me to proofread better. Which is sometimes try to do without success. So I tell anyone who sees my errors that they must know what I intended to write.
So I will not ask John O’ to send you my address unless you desire to communicate with me privately. For I am sure I would enjoy such a conversation because I like to get to know the people whom I meet.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Glenn,
Thank you for your peer-review. I would like to have a private email conversation with you, so I will ask John O’Sullivan to send my email address to you.
I am an experimentalist and one thing I should have mention. Both the RT container and the boiling water should be remised when the first ice is seen to form. This is a critical, simple measurement. Before and after masses of liquid. Obviously first the containers need to be massed, then the containers plus waters need to be massed and finally the both containers plus contents needs to be massed again at.the end of the experiment as defined by when the water first froze.
Before I write more I am going to try to find a video of the high school experiment. So hopefully can see and not have to assume what I might see.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Glenn,
I Googled Mpemba Effect and read three scholarly articles. One of the three found the RT water froze first. One placed beakers of water in cryogenic liquid baths whose temperature was low even produce to produce a thin layer of super-cooled water on the inside of the beaker which then suddenly froze. And the third was was many the reasoned opinions of Philosophers who were never know to do an actual experiment.
So that a difference of the two waters was that the RT water had dissolve gases in it and the boiled water did not. When I heats a kettle of water one cans see gas bubbles forming on the side of kettle. These gases act to delay the supercooled thin layer to freeze until the layer cools to a lower temperature than that which the boiled water begins to freeze.
So the bottom line one needs to list ‘all’ the factors beside the temperature of the water. Which every good experimentalist must do. Of course, the procedure I assumed with cold air cooling the side of the beaker would never cool the water in either beaker quickly enough to form a significantly cooled supercooled water. In the case I proposed thermal convective circulations which mix the water so a thin surface layer of supercooled water would never be formed.
So, I consider the claim of the Mpemba Effect to be a devious fraud as the effect is advertised without accurate definition.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You will never believe anything that conflicts with your existing beliefs. You demand others do experiments the way you want them done, not being willing do the experiment yourself, then dispute their results for assumed or presumed reasons because they are not the results you want. Here’s another experiment from Dr. Pollack’s book you could but won’t do. Take a beaker of 0 C water and pour it into a glass of RT water from a height of 20.034 cm. Ice will form in the glass of water. Why?
You believe that water is one homogenous structure but the experiments and even the size of a calorie show that the structure of water changes depending on its energy content. The question is why and my attempt at explaining is different from James’ and Dr Pollack’s and no body knows whose, if any, is correct. The point of the article is that anomalies to beliefs need to be explored not ignored or denied as you do.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, James, and Glenn,
This comment is mainly in reference to what Herb and James have written but I want to make sure that Glenn notices this comment.
I asked the PSI edition, John O’Sullivan, to allow readers to refer to previous postings as it seems he is able to do. Herb you have told me that I could use what appears to be a search feature that is already in place. And I reported back to Herb that I tried this and nothing happens. And I asked Herb to try using this feature to see if it was a problem with my computer system. Herb, you have yet to report that you had anymore success than I have.
A fact is soon after I discovered PSI, John O’ invited to begin submitting essays for possible postings. So on July 28, 2016 I posted an essay titled ‘Feynman’s Blunder—Part 1’. In this essay I referred to what Richard Feynman had taught his physics students at Caltech in the first lecture of ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics. And in this Part 1 I challenged readers to comment about what they considered Feynman’s Blunder might have been. Then, in ‘Feynman’s Blunder—Part 2’ (August 5, 2016) I reported what I considered Feynman’s Blunder to have been.
After Part 2 Jim McGinn promptly commented: “It’s really unclear what you think Feynman’s bender is here. Are you suggesting Feynman actually believed there were only two molecules of steam in the whole room. Obviously it couldn’t be that. Is it that he mistakenly assumed steam can exist at the ambient temperature of the atmosphere? If that is the case then Feynman’s blunder is much, much more widespread than you suggest in that all of meteorology and just about everyone else (except me and a handful of people who have been influenced by me) is maintaining this blunder. Please be concise and explicit with your response. James McGinn. Like the rest of us, Feynman adopted this blunder from a dude named Isaac Newton: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic?f=8&t=16306 “
And Ed Bo commented: “Good grief! It’s very reasonable—and very clear—what Feynman was arguing; you just missed it completely! Feynman was showing what water molecules would like expanded a billion (10^9) in length—which means 10^27 (= 10^9)^3) times bolumetically. At this scale, a water molecule would be the size of an apple. So at this scale, how close would molecules of gaseous H2O be to each other? You cite at STP, there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules of a gas in a volume of 22.4 liters. So blown up by a factor of 10^27 volumetrically there would 6.02 x 10^-4 molecules per 22.4-liter volume, or 1 molecule every 1661 instance of this volume. If we took a large room with a volume of 100 cubic meters (100,000 liters), it would have 4464 instances of this 22.4 liter volume, so there would be about 3 molecules AT THIS SCALE in the room. All Feynman was saying that in this gaseous state, the spacing between molecules is FAR, FAR greater than the size of the molecules, too great to show accurately in a simple drawing. No blunder—just a great teacher!”
Now what Feynman had stated and was attempting to illustrate was his statement: “all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.”
I,, as a chemistry teacher, often illustrated how tiny these atoms were by taking a 25ml graduated cylinder filled to 18ml level with water and stated that in this 18ml of water were 6.02 x 10^23 water molecules composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom which were strongly attracting each other.
You (Herb, Glenn, James, and any other reader) of this comment) must decide whether Feynman made a plunder or if I did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Feynman was no less confused about water as was Newton and Einstein before him. All of science is confused on water and it stems back to a very banal mistake made my Linus Pauling in the 1950s. This mistake conceals from us the variable polarity that underlies the anomalies of H2O and such things as the high boiling point and the extremely small droplet sizes that variable polarity affords. (It is the extremely small droplets sizes [this itself being a consequence of variable polarity and the fact that breaking of hydrogen bonds is the mechanism that releases more polarity]) that underlies the delusion that evaporated H2O that is mixed into the air is gaseous. As I suggested, Newton, Einstein, and Feynman were all victims of this delusion.
Here’s more:
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
To again demonstrate ‘How Stupid I Am’ I will try to have a scientific conversation with you. We both agree that a water molecule has an unique intermolecular bonding capability which is termed hydrogen bonding. And I have not encountered anyone else here at PSI for which there is evidence that they possess the knowledge which we do. But we (you and I) also are aware that this is where our understanding, of the influence this unique intermolecular bonding upon the physical properties of water, end.
However, you just wrote about some of these physical properties which had not been mentioned before. “This mistake conceals from us the variable polarity that underlies the anomalies of H2O and such things as the high boiling point and the extremely small droplet sizes that variable polarity affords. (It is the ‘ [this itself being a consequence of variable polarity and the fact that breaking of hydrogen bonds is the mechanism that releases more polarity]) that underlies the delusion that evaporated H2O that is mixed into the air is gaseous.”
I have reviewed before the R.C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, had written (‘Weather and Climate’): “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.” He stated this to explain how (why) it is that the atmosphere’s measured temperature at any specific location and time has never been observed to be less than the atmosphere’s dew point temperature measured at the same specific location and time.
The critical ‘fact’ which Sutcliffe stated is that these nuclei of condensation can have different distinct (salts or acids) chemical compositions. And the possibility of a salt composition is critically important. For it a commonly observed fact that the density of salt water (ocean water) does not begin to decrease as the ocean water is cooled below 4C as is the case with ‘fresh’ water which has dissolved very, very low concentrations of salts.
So I now understand where your term ‘variable polarity’ comes from. For the ions (positive and negative) form an interaction with the dipole moment of the water molecule which disrupts the rigid orientation between water molecules needed to form the ‘hydrogen bond’ between water moles. And it is this rigid 3-d framework of water molecules, due to hydrogen bonds which begins to decrease the density of pure relatively pure liquid water as this water cools below 4C. And the observed fact that ice (solid water) floats on liquid water (salt water even), is the evidence which forces use to accept the idea of the strongly directional bond that we image the exists between water molecules in the 3d structure of ice.
But your reference to ‘extremely small droplets sizes’ is factor of which I am aware of its history. Which history you might not be commonly sharing.
“The form of the Kelvin equation here is not the form in which it appeared in Lord Kelvin’s article of 1871. The derivation of the form that appears in this article from Kelvin’s original equation was presented by Robert von Helmholtz (son of German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz) in his dissertation of 1885.” (Wikipedia)
The relation between a droplet’s vapor pressure has nothing to due with what the intermolecular iteration within the liquid droplet actually is. It applies to a hydrogen-carbon liquid droplet just as it applies to a water droplet.
Not sure what your response will be to what I have just written? Will have to wait to see this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
To determine the effect of the nuclei in water compare the properties of distilled water to water containing the particles. Do the particles significantly change any of the peculiar traits of water?
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
“Don’t accept everything you hear as truth. We must be careful not to believe things simply because we want them to be true. Be critical and evaluate what you believe in. ” — Richard Feynman
Proof that Meteorology is pretending to understand storms
https://youtu.be/Mp2VwjreqMc
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I missed your reply. The comment section is too short and when people like Dean, Jerry, Herb, etc make multiple comments it scrolls to fast.
I just tried the “search” function by typing in “by Jerry Krause” and it came back with”Dr. Jerry Krause: How Stupid Am I” followed by other articles you’ve written.
I believe you can name the article or the author and it will provide options that match the criteria.
Have good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I can understand why you missed my comment for the reasons you mentioned. I tried what you reported and it did not work for me. My pc with Microsoft 10 quit working and I followed the advise of my daughter who was required to use Apple products. And it turned out we have not it setup probably because previous ly we had gotten an iPad to visit with her and family while she worked outside the USA.
So thank you for informing me and other PSI reader how they might do that which I cannot.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I am appreciate that you liked the article.
For water droplets to rise in the atmosphere their electrical charge must increase as increasing distance decreases the strength of the repelling force between the droplet and the Earth’s surface. I have not seen where you offer an explanation for the gradual rise of water droplets in the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
For water droplets to rise in the atmosphere their electrical charge must increase as increasing distance decreases the strength of the repelling force between the droplet and the Earth’s surface. I have not seen where you offer an explanation for the gradual rise of water droplets in the atmosphere.
I don’t know what “repelling force” you are talking about. As I see it, water droplets are just attracted by the electric charges that are resident in the atmosphere. The origin of these electric charges, I suspect, is the earth’s magma and the Solar wind.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I thought that because there are more atoms with surrounding electrons in the matter of the Earth’s surface that they were producing a negative electric field that decreases with increasing altitude and this provided the electric force causing the nano droplets to rise. If the molecules in the atmosphere were attracting them wouldn’t they move towards the denser lower atmosphere where there are more molecules and the charge is greater?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: I thought that because there are more atoms with surrounding electrons in the matter of the Earth’s surface that they were producing a negative electric field that decreases with increasing altitude and this provided the electric force causing the nano droplets to rise.
James: I don’t know why you would think this. Being very light, I think individual molecules are more attracted to the positive and negative electric charges of the molecules in their immediate vicinity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
All atoms and molecules are surrounded by electrons and even though they have an equal number of protons and electrons they will all have a negative charge because of the position of the electrons. The attraction between atoms and molecules is not from from the electric force but from an attractive force (energy/magnetism/gravity)
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The NIST quantum logic clock is now claiming one second in 33 billion years accuracy….this beats the above mentioned atomic clock by maybe a factor of 8. Is any of this stuff above from the Electrouniverse guys? Science must equal the TRUTH or it is not science…that’s the beauty of it. Newton had the truth of the orbit of planets until Einstein revealed a more accurate truth…Newton’s formula works well except for the orbit of Mercury. Mercury is too close to the large gravity of the sun for Newton’s formula to predict its orbit. The only difference between civilization today and say 2000 years ago is scientific knowledge.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Energy is not a physical “thing”, it is an abstraction, a property of a system. Energy is the capacity to do work.
Time dilation occurs near large masses because time IS energy. It can execute work. The internal energy of all the particles within the mass uses some of the energy of the field of time and so the field must lose energy to support that. Hence the rate of time slows down.
The further away from the mass, (higher elevation), the more the field has had chance to recover and it losses less energy to the mass. Hence time passes faster at higher elevations.
In special relativity, an increase in velocity results in a reduction in time energy (for the “traveler”). This is because the field, (the time rate field), is wavelike, such that, as you move through it, the stationary field becomes blue shifted (for the traveler). Hence the traveler’s experience of the field has become relatively red shifted and so time slows down for him.
Both special and general relativity are correct. Einstein was correct and anyone who says otherwise does not understand relativity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
You state the closer an object is to a large mass the slower time. The faster an object moves the slower the time for that object. The data for time dilation of satellites shows that the further the satellites is from the mass and the slower it goes the greater the time dilation (slower time moves).
???
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Ken, do you agree that gravitational time dilation is dependent on the term 1/r^2? …..and velocity time dilation is dependent on v^2/c^2? …… r is the distance between 2 bodies like the sun and Mercury and v is the velocity of the moving clock being compared to a stationary clock? r must be a relatively small number to be of consequence and v must be relatively large to be of consequence. Airline pilots spend years flying at hundreds of mph and months at high altitudes but it probably means less than a second difference in their life spans. After a 4 hour flight, they don’t have to reset their watch.
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
WELL, I’m confuused. Would it be correct to say that C02, is a radiatively able gas that absorbs IR mainly from a higher altitude and then re-emits it in any/every direction? I have no physics background so be gentle. It’s aftrer midnight in Australia so I’m going to bed in ther dark.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Judy,
The wavelengths a molecule absorbs depends on the bond length and internal energy of the molecule.The molecule as a whole also has kinetic energy and the energy the whole molecule radiates and transfers in collisions is not restricted to a few narrow wavelength which the internal structure of the molecule is able to absorb/radiate.
O2 and N2 do not absorb ir or visible light because their bond lengths are too short. They do absorb uv light and some of this internal energy becomes energy for the whole molecule giving the molecule kinetic energy. When these molecules collide with a CO2 molecule, if they have greater energy than the CO2, they will transfer energy to it making it hotter.
Herb
Reply
LLOYD
| #
Observation of a condition can be seen as proof IF the observation is accurate and can be replicated. Ask anybody with time in Court and they will tell you Observation by Witnesses can often be very different in content. One person’s UFO is another person’s atmospheric anomaly. Not to mention a person’s psychological condition can affect their observation of reality. Some people see what they want to see. Also, someone please explain the theory of entanglement.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Galileo’s science is about 4 centuries old and the amount of science today would make him appear to be ignorant. The basic problem is science is elusive and complex. There is not much observation by human eyes in quantum mechanics and the machines used to probe can be expensive and complex. Here is a short video on entanglement http://youtube.com/watch?vOefsPBDOcFE
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Link does not work? Just search youtube for Arvin Ash entanglement
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
To search previous articles by author or topic put your mouse over where it says search and then click and enter name topic, etc, and then enter, not over the magnifying glass.
It took me ages to track down the article on Raman Spectroscopy until I noticed the search tool.
Be Happy. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Finally success but neither you or Herb directly suggest that I enter (return on apple) instead of clicking the magnifying glass. Thank your for encouraging me to try one more time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Sorry Matt, I obviously cannot read what is plainly written. And Herb I will try Feynman and see what happens. For I doubt that many posts on PSI have Feynman in the title.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Tried and found a post of yours which had Feynman in your post appeared.
Thank you for I just learned a very valuable fact (not a hypothesis or a I think)
Have a good day, jerry
Reply
James
| #
All we need to know is that:
1. The earth has an atmosphere and all energy and water therein is moved around by convection: when there are clouds we can even see it happening.
2. The moon has no atmosphere, but is at our same distance from the sun and has roughly the same albedo. But it’s about 90C colder.
There’s no no need to invent anything else; it’s all in place and always has been.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I agree totally with #1; but I question #2. I have read that the moon’s albedo has been measured to be about 7% and the earth’s albedo has been measured to be about 30% when measured from satellite. Which measurement from satellite I do question because to observe the solar radiation reflected from the atomistically smooth liquid water surface requires that the radiometer needs to be pointed the sun, especially in the three hours after sunrise and before sunset. Hence, the radiometer would have to be shielded from the direct solar radiation. But I read and understand the radiometer somehow must scan from side to side to ‘see’ an area of the earth’s surface. So I understand the radiometer scans the surface in a primarily downward direction. Hence, the radiometer can seldom detect any reflected solar radiation.
And I read that the thermal conductivity of the dry lunar soil is so low that that no diurnal temperature oscillation is observed below a depth of 1 meter during the its long days and nights.
And I point to the observed fact that measured surface temperatures of the earth’s tropical oceans is well above 20C. So it does not make sense to me to calculate average temperatures of any thing of which we know that its temperature is often changing more than 10C or 20C or maybe even 30C in a dry desert climate during certain senses of the year.
But James, when you concluded “it’s all in place and always has been” do you reject the evidence that indicates that glaciers once covered the northern portions of the northern hemisphere’s continents?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James
| #
Last question: no. I meant the information and the physics. Where I live (Trentino, Italy) there was, only 10-15k years ago we are told, a layer of ice about a mile thick; and today we can see the traces and the heaps of rock they left. I’ve seen monthlies dating from the beginning of the 20th century, lamenting glacier loss. And who can deny the ice collapses in N America and the English Channel or the worldwide 100m rise in sea level? So we are at the end of Wurm. Who knows what can happen next; but our wish to change the course of a lot more than history, or take the blame for what started well before we even existed, smacks of extreme arrogance. Much better to use the Scouts’ idea: be prepared.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
The rock evidence of the glacial period you describe I believe to be correct. But I not certain what the evidence is about the 100m rise in sea level that occurred since 15000 years ago. Hence, I am not certain about the mile or two thick glaciers I read about. For would a 100m thick possibly move the rocks. And I am really not sure of what anyone could do to prepare for an 100m rise in sea level.’
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James
| #
The rock shfted around by glaciers is here in the Alps in plain site – sorry I forgot the name – Moraines.
The rise in sea level over the 10-20k years is common knowledge; and where else could all that ice have gone? The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered most of Canada and N America and when it collapsed gouged out canyons and lakes in just a few years. Fact is that in proportion there’s not much ice left, maybe enough for 5-6m further sea level rise; no doubt someone has done the sums somewhere. The words Wurm Glaciation access lots of data, as also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Conversations (discussions, debates?)like this are great. They are means by which one learns.
Relative to glaciers (clearly an observed natural phenomenon) I ask: Can you point to any glacier today that is a mile or two thick?
Relative to what I claim to know, glaciers a mile or two thick are the product of one’s imagination produced by one’s reasoning. Which reasoning is not to be trusted. For we know that the earth does not stand still because their are observations we can see today that are totally not compatible with that reasoning.
So James, I question if glaciers a mile or two thick ever existed because I cannot observe such a glacier today. For a fact is to form such a glacier it has to snow a lot. Which you propose has happened because at the time of these thick glaciers the world’s oceans were 100m lower. That proposal requires a ‘lot’ of energy to evaporate that much water. I have to ask: Have you calculated how much energy would be required to evaporate a 100m layer of the world’s oceans (they are all connected to each other)?
However, I observe that in the past there has been a great deal of volcanic activity in the past in the earth’s polar regions. And based on the volcanic activity which can be observed today we know that a great deal of energy is required to cause this volcanic activity which must have significantly heated the Arctic Ocean sometime in the past. I hope you can see my points.
Thank you very much for creating this conversation. Creating because without your comments there would be no conversation. And I plan to write a short comment to MattH which I hope you will read. For in it I admit to a mistake I have been making as Matt and I have been having conversations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James
| #
The Greenland ice cap is said to be “generally more than 2km thick”.
Antarctica according to Amundsen and Scott reaches about 3000m asl at the Pole, but how much of that is mountain and how much ice I’ve idea.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Very good to read your comment. The key words are “is said to be’ and according to’. As question is: What actually are the thicknesses of the respective ‘ice sheets.
I have recently read Edmund Hillary’s book ‘No Latitude For Error’. So I do know that he reported a crevasse 70 feet deep on the high Antarctic Plateau. This crevasse is physical evidence that the ice sheet is moving down a slight slope of the Plateau which is not perfectly ‘level’. Just as I read and see photos of ‘leads’ (small crevasses which naturally form on the ice sheets (no more that 20 feet thick) which float on the sea water of the Arctic Ocean.
And I know that the region (area) in which I grew up and the specific 160 acres of the farm which my father farmed at about 45N latitude have been covered by a glacier which was melting as it ‘flowed’ further south. And I know that I was not taught about these glaciers in elementary, or high, school. And as I continued study laboratory physical sciences in my ‘higher’ education, I never formally studied the natural science of geology or meteorology. But in my later years I have read about them because they are infant sciences relative to the mature sciences of physics (astronomy) and chemistry (al-chemistry).
And because where I have lived and traveled, I consider that I maybe ‘know’ (have actually observed) more about weather, climate, and glaciers than scholars who have academically studied these these natural sciences.
And your comments give me opportunity to share what I have read and what I have actually experienced.
And I consider you are a better student of these infant natural science because you question and do not totally accept the accepted knowledge that glaciers a mile of two which have actually existed. Which is a topic easier to observed than the more random winds which move over the Earth’s liquid and solid surfaces.
Another great book (beside Hillary’s book) I would recommend that one might profitably read is ‘North Dakota’s Geological Legacy” by the field geologist John P Bluemle.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
HI James McGinn
I an writing you to ask you begin a conversation about your focus upon storms which you do not describe define. Rather than specifically define what the problems are, you criticize my and others’ lack of knowledge without defining what this lack specifically is. So, I begin by reviewing my background relative to my study of meteorology.
I agree with you that most meteorologists do not understand fundamental meteorology for the simple fact for they generally never acknowledge the existence of the intermolecular hydrogen bonding between the tiny, tiny water molecules (H2O). For this specific attraction between these water molecules must be used to explain the much greater melting temperature of solid water (ice) and the much greater boiling temperature of liquid water relative to these temperatures of another common tiny molecule composed of only three atoms—carbon dioxide (CO2).
I read introductory textbooks to learn what is generally know about other sciences which I have never studied in an academic setting. The two textbooks I use as my references are METEOROLOGY ‘Understanding the Atmosphere’ 3Ed. by Ackerman and Knox (A&K) and METEOROLOGY TODAY 9th Ed. by Ahrens (A). Both textbooks have a glossary which I have never seen a chemistry textbook to have had. Which glossary is good to because it allows me to quickly identify that neither textbook considers hydrogen bonding in any shape or form. Which is factual evidence that maybe most meteorologists do not understand a fundamental fact of their science.
But as I reviewed that which I claimed to know, I discovered I and no one else has referred to friction when discussing meteorology here at PSI. Now at the beginning of their glossary A&K wrote: “The number in bold following a glossary term’s definition is the chapter in which the term first appears as a key term.” Hence, I find that the term—frictional force—is first used in Chapter 6. Where I read: “Five different forces combine to move air: the gravitational force, the pressure gradient force (PGF), the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, and the frictional force. Some of these forces are real, meaning that they are observable no matter what your perspective is. Other forces are apparent, meaning that you may observe them in one frame of reference (e.g., on a rotating Earth) but not in others. We must examine these forces to determine where and how hard the wind will blow)” …
“The frictional force in the atmosphere is, for our current purposes, caused by the flow of wind over the roughness of the Earth’s surface. In these cases, friction opuses, or decelerates, the wind. … Friction opposes the wind regardless of its direction. The roughness if the surface and the speed of the wind determine the magnitude of frictional force. The force of friction over smooth, still water is smaller than it is over trees in a forest or a rough, craggy mountain peaks, and it is nearly zero above the lowest kilometer or two of the troposphere. The magnitude of the frictional force increases with increasing wind speed.”
Here, A&K stated something that is observed not to exist? What is it? A wind that exists over ‘smooth, still water’. For the slightest breeze will cause, via friction, the smooth, still water to form tiny, but observable, ripples.
Another term which I have not read at PSI is ‘boundary layer’. Which is not found in A&K’s glossary. However, in A’s glossary I find ‘atmospheric boundary layer’: “The layer of air from the earth’s surface usually up to about 1 km (3300 ft) where the is influenced by the friction of the earth’s surface and the objects on it. Also called the planetary boundary layer and the frictional layer.”
Another term I seldom have read at PSI is ‘jet stream’. Which A defines as: “Relatively strong winds concentrated within a narrow band in the atmosphere.“ And A&K defined it as: “A narrow region of relatively strong winds (i.e., wind speeds greater than 70 knots) usually located in the upper troposphere.” And A&K refer me to Chapter 7. Where I read: “Today’s weather reports often discuss the position of the ‘jet stream’. … The existence of fast winds moving from west to east was long suspected because of the movement of storm and cloud systems. But the suspicions remained unconfirmed until World War II.”
Here, based upon my other readings, that there were suspicions among USA meteorologists before WWII is a fable. It is the truth that we discovered the existence of these jet streams when we observed Japanese hydrogen balloons, launched in Japan, which were carrying incendiary devices and landing in the continental USA. And it is a fact that A&K’s in depth description of ‘jet streams’ is less than a page.
From which limited descriptions of jet streams, now known to be associated with storms, has not been conceptually described. For these narrow regions of relatively strong winds must have boundary layer with the weaker winds which are not part of a jet stream. And we understand that one cannot construct a perpetual motion machine because there always some ‘friction’ between parts that move relative to each other.
Hence, a very fundamental and critical question is: How does a jet stream maintain these high wind speeds between Japan and the continental USA?
James, I suspect that these now observed, via the world-wide atmospheric sounding project, jet streams are why you correctly claim that meteorologists in general, do not possibly understand storms (which by observation involve strong winds). Am I close? If I am, maybe we (you and I) can develop a better understanding by having a conversation.
Haven’t triedto proofread. Too tired from the efforts of composing.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
The Lenard effect is a phenomenon where negatively charged electricity is generated when water droplets collide with each other or with a wetted solid in a place where water splashes such as a waterfall or fountain.
Hi Jerry. James identifies a couple of probable causes of electrical charges in the atmosphere and not being a scientist I thought I would start with researching negative air ions and positive air ions.
I am reading some basic science on this and because it is not climate change or weather science I am reading it is less likely to be corrupted maybe.
Cheers Jerry and James. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Some scientific history, in ‘Elements of Physics’ 4th Ed. by Smith (1938) 33rd Chapter ‘Electrostatics’ he began: “If a pith ball is hung from a support wily a silk thread, and a rubber rod which has been electrified by stroking it with cat’s fur is brought near it, the pith ball is at first attracted to the rod. If the pith ball is allowed to come in contract with the rod, it is then found that the ball is repelled by the rod. When a glass rod which has been rubbed with silk is brought near the same pith ball carrying the charge which it received from the rubber rod, the charged pith ball is attracted by the electrified glass rod. There are then two states of electrification, or, as is usually said, two kinds of electricity; that which appears on an ebonite rod when rubbed with cat’s fur and that which appears on a glass rod rubbed with silk.’
I consider the rubbing action of moving one body across another body to be what I term FRICTION by which electrons (with a defined negative charge) are transferred from one body to the other body leaving the one body with a positive charge.
And if two bodies are vigorously rubbed (moved) against each other we observe their temperatures increase due the effort (an energy doing the work involved in their being rubbed against each other).
Later in the same chapter, Smith wrote: “The ‘Electron”—The preceding elementary experiments indicated that there are two kinds of electricity—positive and negative. These two kinds of electricity are the most important entities in nature, for every atom is built up of a certain number os positive units of electricity together with an equal number of units of negative electricity. It is possible to have any number of these units, but it is never possible to subdivide one.”
This is not only about how we learned about the electrical nature of matter but it is an example of how the physics professor, in 1938’ clearly and accurately described in detail what had been learned and how it was learned.
I reviewed this because you have referred to the Lenard Effect of 1892. Which I consider to be merely the result of Friction at a boundary layer and the force of gravity which accelerates the random motions (currents) of a river as flows over a cliff as the less turbulent water being poured from a pitcher becomes a thinner and thiner stream until the stream separates into droplets and as the magnitude of friction between the droplet’s surface and the air through which it is falling breaks the large droplet into even smaller droplets. However, I do not deny that the air molecules might be rubbing electrons off of the falling droplets surfaces. But there is the problem that the average speed (700miles/hour) of the atmosphere’s primary molecules (nitrogen and oxygen) are continually colliding with surface of liquid water. Which droplets are falling no near that fast through the atmosphere.
But the purpose of my historical review was that it was Schrodinger’s assumption that an electron could be treated mathematically as a wave explained theoretically why water (H2O) was a bent molecule and that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a linear molecule which allowed chemists using tinker toy models to construct the 3-d cage of water molecules in ice. And it is the required near perfect orientation that water molecules need to form the strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds which makes liquid water prone to super-cool well below 0C without freezing to its solid structure. And which forces the conclusion that the atmosphere must naturally contain an adequate number of condensation nuclei (condensed matter) to prevent the atmosphere ever becoming super-saturated with water molecules. As evidence by the observed fact that the atmosphere’s temperature has never been measured to be less than the atmosphere’s measured dew point temperature. I keep repeating this because this observation (evidence) absolutely refutes the idea commonly termed the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry
Thank you for the trouble you take to give a comprehensive reply.
This gives me a lot to figure.
Thank you. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I have been making a terrible mistake by not identifying there is a great difference between a laboratory scientist like in my earlier life I was and being a naturalist like Louis Agassiz was. Which naturalist I became by reading how Agassiz taught his students to see (to become naturalists).
Matt, you are a naturalist. How do I know this? Your stories about predicting good surfing conditions. A lot of people surf, but few try to predict the best times for near ideal surfing conditions. And you wrote about how you tried to work with the fish in your bay to sustain this natural fishery relative to this guy who arrived and is totally over fishing so that in the next several years there will be no fishery.
So stick what you were independently doing before based upon what you have personally observed and do not worry about what others have written before the particle known as the electron was finally observed. Before this it was merely an negative charge.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Hi jerry,
Hopefully these links may help:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16430
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn,
Read much of which you referred me to. This, what you wrote, appears to summarize what I read. “Vague, evasive, worthless. Convection plays (almost) no role in the atmosphere. Water’s role has to do with structure (plasma), not convection. Coriollis is a minor force.”
You dismiss convection with a hand-wave. Look at satellite photos of the ‘whirling’ clouds of hurricane. In the northern hemisphere the southerly boundary become more clearly defined from west to east and as some as to flow begins to acquire a westerly direction the ‘contrated’ flow begins fall apart. A scientific law I see is that any easterly atmospheric wind is being compacted (there is a better word but I cannot remember it now) by the Coriolis Effect and any westerly wind is spreading apart (again there is a better word). And I have not read a recognition of what can be plainly seen.
And convention, do you ignore the towering clouds of a thunderstorm which rapidly form and then just as rapidly disperse leaving thin, high cirrus clouds moving toward the east as part of a jet stream.
And how does your theory of ‘plasma’ account for the observed fact that jet streams are more common and stronger during the Northern Hemisphere’s winter than summer?
And in your discussion of an atmospheric plasma I do not read any mention of precipitation events. Finally the fundamental basis of my understanding of the winds of the earth’s atmosphere is that water vapor (molecules) is the fuel of the atmospheric heat engines which move large volumes of the atmosphere which we commonly term atmospheric winds. And these water molecules are ‘ejected’ into the atmosphere by their ‘evaporation’ from liquid and solid water surfaces due to the absorption of solar radiation (energy) at and in the earth’s surfaces. From where the water molecules move to higher altitudes by atmospheric convention and the diffusion (a known phenomenon which is not commonly considered) of the water molecules as they try to fill all space uniformly.
What I have just written is not ‘vague’. Can you point to any observation of your plasma. We see clouds; their disappearance due to evaporation and their reappearance due to the condensation of water molecules. We measure the precipitation of liquid water and of solid water (ice) as the result of rain storms and snow storms.
Of course, I have not yet directly written anything (or much) about the influences of the five forces. “Five different forces combine to move air: the gravitational force, the pressure gradient force (PGF), the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, and the frictional force. Nor did you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Read much of which you referred me to. This, what you wrote, appears to summarize what I read. “Vague, evasive, worthless. Convection plays (almost) no role in the atmosphere. Water’s role has to do with structure (plasma), not convection. Coriollis is a minor force.”
You dismiss convection with a hand-wave.
The evidence for it is so incredibly non-existent. (As you demonstrate here.)
Look at satellite photos of the ‘whirling’ clouds of hurricane.
You have to be a moron to assume that whirling clouds indicates convection. Seriously.
the fundamental basis of my understanding of the winds of the earth’s atmosphere is that water vapor (molecules) is the fuel of the atmospheric heat engines
Meaningless speculation. And otherwise, plainly silly. You got nothing.
From where the water molecules move to higher altitudes by atmospheric convention and the diffusion (a known phenomenon which is not commonly considered) of the water molecules as they try to fill all space uniformly.
This is vague, wishy washy speculation complete abstracted from reality. You got nothing.
What I have just written is not ‘vague’.
It’s perfectly meaningless. Vague nonsense.
Can you point to any observation of your plasma.
Yes, sheath of a tornado.
We see clouds; their disappearance due to evaporation and their reappearance due to the condensation of water molecules.
Yeah so? What’s your point?
How to Untangle and Decipher the Rhetorical Doublespeak of Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/How-to-Untangle-and-Decipher-the-Rhetorical-Doublespeak-of-Meteorology-edlefv
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
The jet stream, explained
Jet streams are fast-moving currents of air that circulate above the Earth. When people refer to “the jet stream” they are usually referring to the polar-front jet stream or the subtropical jet stream, two major jet streams that shape weather patterns around the world.
Jet streams travel in the tropopause—the area between the troposphere and the stratosphere—at heights of about 8 to 15 kilometers (5 to 9 miles). The strong air currents, which tend to look like wavy, striated rivers when seen on a jet stream map, form when cold air and hot air meet. Their winds blow from west to east at speeds that range from 129 to 225 kilometers per hour (80 to 140 miles per hour), but they can reach more than 443 kilometers per hour (275 miles per hour).
Jet streams are stronger in winter in the northern and southern hemispheres, because that’s when air temperature differences that drive them tend to be most pronounced. The polar-front jet stream forms at about 60 degrees latitude in both hemispheres, while the subtropical jet stream forms at about 30 degrees.
How jet streams affect the weather
Shifting jet stream patterns can have a big impact on the weather. Jet streams are always changing: moving to higher or lower altitudes, breaking up, and shifting in flow, depending on the season and other variables, such as energy coming from the sun. During winter, jet streams tend to follow the sun’s elevation and move toward the equator, while they move back toward the poles in spring.
Air north of a jet stream is typically colder, while air to the south is usually warmer. As jet streams dip or break off, they move air masses around, creating shifts in global weather patterns. A large buckle in the jet stream, for example, is what pulled Hurricane Sandy ashore in New Jersey in 2012.
Jet streams travel in the tropopause—the area between the troposphere and the stratosphere—at heights of about 5 to 9 miles (8 to 15 kilometers). The strong air currents, which tend to look like wavy, striated rivers when seen on a jet stream map, form when cold air and hot air meet. Their winds blow from west to east at speeds that range from 80 to 140 miles per hour (129 to 225 kilometers per hour), but they can reach more than 275 miles per hour (443 kilometers per hour).
BY CHRISTINA NUNEZ
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I have been pondering what causes or drives the jetstream and I ponderated that a part of the driver would be during daytime the lower atmosphere warms and expands and at night it cools and contracts so this must create a pump effect and drive the jetstream to a degree.
When you add the jetstream speed to the earth rotation speed it starts adding up.
Cheers Matt
Reply
Hi MattH,
| #
Hi MattH,
I am having trouble submitting a response to Nunez’s explanation of the jet stream.
You wrote: “When you add the jet stream speed to the earth rotation speed it starts adding up.”
You are on the right path (my opinion) but you haven’t yet written the magic words ‘Conservation of Angular Momentum’..
Thank you for reviewing these general observations about jet streams. However, when I study the data of atmospheric soundings (Google its), find many jet streams are observed near the top of the troposphere and not only in the tropopause. Which points to the fact that I most actually study the data and not someone’s description of the data. And this applies to any of my generalization of the data I cliaim to ‘generally’ make. What is critically important is that most of the actual data to which I refer has been measured only since WWII as is the case relative to atmospheric soundings. But much of the other data to which I refer has been measure during the past three decades or less.
Hence, meteorologists such as R.C. Sutcliffe, whose book I commonly quote, have been ‘flying’ blind.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
During the night we had an good precipitation event. From this morning’s sounding data (4am local time): 5072m 80knots (bottom of jet stream), 10421m 86knots (top), and 11937m (top of troposphere.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. When a tornado funnel touches down what attracts the funnel to the earth surface?
Surely the only thing that could cause that is an electro magnetic attraction between charged cloud water particles/plasma, and earth.
Does that make a tornado a dynamo or a motor?
The air being sucked up from earth surface will be negatively charged most probably, so does that mean the tornado wall is positively charged, an electron stolen by the Lenard effect?
So, is a tornado doing what a lightning bolt does but using a different mechanism.
So many questions. So little time.
Cheers Jerry
MattH
| #
A lightning bolt and a tornado would be exact opposite electron transfer mechanism.
MattH
| #
Wrong. A lightning bolt from cloud to earth and a tornado is exactly the same electron transfer/equalibrium mechanism.
James McGinn
| #
I think all of the movement in the atmosphere is powered by differential pressure. Differential pressure is the result of the fact that the sun shines more intensely on parts of the planet, equator and day-side, than it does on other parts, poles and night-side.
The jet stream is pushed along by the fact that vortices exhaust into the jet stream. Initially vortices originate along the jet stream in the tropopause and grow down and upstream along wind shear boundaries. So, vortices tunnel down and upwind, producing low pressure and storms when they grow down. Uplift in the atmosphere, such as that witnessed in thunderstorsm, is a consequence of vortice activity above which acts like a vacuum cleaner hose, channelling air at high speed, using differential pressure as the engine, and exhuasting into the jet stream.
The physics of all of this have nothing to do with convection and have everything to do with the structural capabilities of the plasma-based vortices. The plasma, which spins up on wind sheer boundaries, can be thought of as a consequence of the dramatic surface tension properties of H2O.
Meteorology’s notions of convection, dry layer capping, and latent heat are just fantasy bases speculation that appeals to people that have very low scientific standards/abilities.
The Mechanism of H2O Polarity Neutralization
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
When there were atmospheric nuclear tests, radioactive clouds were put into orbits traveling east around the planet. Their radioactive fallout could be detected for weeks after the explosions, whether the tests occurred in Russia, South Pacific (French), Nevada or on Bikini island. The entire atmosphere, not just the troposphere, is moving east faster than the surface of the Earth so I don’t see how the Earth can be providing the force to move the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Hi Herb,
Before you make another mess, don’t you believe you should clean up you last couple of messes?
Here:
https://principia-scientific.com/what-is-heat-transfer-and-what-happened-to-academics/#comment-42128
And here:
https://principia-scientific.com/what-is-heat-transfer-and-what-happened-to-academics/#comment-42698
Reply