What If?
Following on from my ‘Hot and Cold’ light essay here is perhaps a more thought-provoking essay about light. The comments to the hot and cold essay raised points about reflected and remitted light. My questions were about hot and cold sources, the comments skirted those questions.
To explain a little more let me look very carefully at the Moon. Reflected light or remitted light or some of both? The light we see, I am very careful NOT to say the photons; have a very hot light source, our star! Some of that light is from the sun’s surface some 6k degrees kelvin. Lots is from the Sun’s atmosphere – one million degrees Kelvin.
That disparate mix reaches the moon, just how quickly depends upon conjecture, theory and accepted science, you know my stance on accepted science!
From observations here on Earth we know that there is a Solar Wind. Real honest to God particles that have significant energy that took around Eight minutes to reach our upper atmosphere, aka Norther/Southern Lights. This implies that they were travelling at the speed of light!
What if they were slower, much slower?
Observe a sunset or sunrise, what do you see; remember ‘look’ and ‘see’ have two very different meanings to me! That twilight time varies according to latitude and season. Some of the Sun’s energy is colliding with upper atmosphere’s particles and causing reflected/re-emitted light to reach our eyes. It wakes up birds. IT CAUSES SUNFLOWER BLOSSOMS TO RE-ORIENT TOWARDS THE DAWN!
This is no accident!
Our star is launching into space huge amounts of STUFF every pico-second and has been doing that for a few billion years. We and the entire solar system are bathed in all that energy and particle matter.
SO! Where am I going with this?
A photon or energy parcel contains a measurable amount of energy. HOW much energy does an atom or electron coming from the sun have? More or Less?
Can the scientists casually equate the incoming energy as the same sort of energy?
Do those scientists even know that there are different sources of energy arriving here at planet Earth from the Sun? Probably even more importantly, can their calculations which have such huge discrepancies be trusted as Scientifically proven data?
I leave you with these questions and add a sting it the tail. What If the LOCAL speed of light is dependent upon the LOCAL Gravity?
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.
Charles Higley
| #
Okay, we know that light is bent as it travels past the edge of a slit. What is it that interacts with the EM of the light? The EM of the atoms in the edge. Next, having never been ruled out as an alternative to gravity, what if gravity is a residual van der Waals effect from bodies of matter, having an effect that is truly tiny, at 1 x 10^-34 the strength of the EM force. Gravity then being an EM derivative would clearly be able to alter light behavior. They try to tell us that gravity runs the Universe, and pretend that there is an even distribution of charge throughout, which is clearly just wrong. No static charge? No currents between bodies? Really? We experience this all the time on Earth but it does not occur elsewhere?
It is basically impossible to have matter without inherent, intrinsic charge. There are quarks and electrons. And clearly, the overall charges in a body of matter would be proportional to the body’s mass. Until they rule out van der Waals effects, I fail to see how they can decide that gravity is a fourth force. Interestingly, if you place a body exactly between two equal masses in space the “gravitational” effects cancel, just as they would with van der Waals.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
Although atoms have the same number of electrons and protons they are not neutral (just as a neutron isn’t neutral but has both a positive and negative charge).Because the protons are concentrated in the center while the electrons are distant from the nucleus the positive charge is weaker at a distance. The difference between positive and negative charge increases the closer to the atom you get. Light (a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields) is bent by the increased negative field close to the atom.
Magnetic force is a concentrated directional force produced by the structure of iron just as a spotlight is the concentrated light formed by mirrors converting a spreading light into a directional light. The general spreading attractive force is gravity. These attractive forces are produced by the energy associated with matter (which produces the electric force and fields) and the attractive field is the complement for the field produced by matter with a change in one field producing a change in the other field.making light.
The electric force and attractive force have opposite actions Two magnetic where opposite field come closer produces a larger magnetic field while opposite electric charges coming closer produce smaller weaker electric fields. This is what propagates light and the speed of light is determined by the strength of the attractive force.
There are only two forces, one attractive force producing motion coming from energy and a repelling force produced by matter that keeps things apart and causes inertia.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Charles,
“Okay, we know that light is bent as it travels past the edge of a slit.” Who is we and where might I find what you have stated?
I can read about light passing through a single slit andthat there are two relationships (results) between the width of the slit and the wavelength of light. I can not find any discussion of what is observed when light ‘travels past’ the edge of a slit.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You wrote: “That disparate mix reaches the moon, just how quickly depends upon conjecture, theory and accepted science, you know my stance on accepted science!”
Why didn’t you simply write: I don’t been the results, which tend to agree with each other within the limit of experimental error (uncertainty) of the several attempts to measure the speed of light? Or, do you know of some such result(s) whose difference(s) far exceeds this uncertainty?
A few years ago I observed a total solar eclipse and saw the white light from the disk of the sun was totally shaded by the moon. And in the path of this total eclipse were a few BOAA weather stations with radiometers which measured the maximum and minimum values of the solar radiation. And value of the minimum solar radiation was reported to be zero. So while the there was indirect light during the eclipse, its value was not sufficient to be detected by the ‘crude?’solar radiometer even though the white light due to the ‘flares’ was plainly visible to my naked eye. This comment is to the ‘disparage mix’ of the solar radiations from the two sources.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Charles & Jerry,
My simple explanation is that those corona structures are being illuminated by Re-emitted energy. What you saw was illumination going sideways from the sun’s surface wrt the direct energy that is being blocked by the moon.
More complicated answer to follow, but involves Non-Euclidean Geometry, and the value assigned to Watts per Sq M as received by us here on Earth.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
One cannot say that light is either “hot” or cold”. Heat is a particular frequency of EMR known s infrared. Other frequencies are not heat radiation. They have no temperature. Heat may be generated at point of impact of the photons but that is a conversion of the energy of the EMR to heat within the receptor.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Ken,
I was referring to the light source rather than the light/energy being transmitted.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
Actually, heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high to low temperature, and it´s not dependent on wavelength. Planck´s book where he defined his theory of quanta for all wavelengths was called “theory of heat radiation”. Radiation is all the same thing, it´s our eyes that makes a difference between “light” and “IR”. We see light, but not other wavelengths.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lifeisthermal,
Very good! I write to encourage and not to claim that I knew this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lifeisthermal,
And I did not know that Planck used the term ‘theory of heat radiation’. This term is important because there are other mechanisms of energy (heat) transfer; but radiation is the fastest.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The speed of energy transfer between objects,ts by radiation varies with the energy of the objects. Both objects are radiating and absorbing energy from the surrounding energy field and as they approach equilibrium with that field the amount of energy radiated approaches the amount of energy absorbed from it causing the rate of energy gain to slow. When collisions occur between objects their energy immediately equalizes.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Relative to your and James McGill’s contention that the atmosphere does not contain water molecules, I have made another of my terrible mistakes. I have forgotten that Francis W. Aston invented the instrument known as the mass spectrograph shortly after WWI. Amazing enough that Aston received his Nobel Prize in chemistry and not in physics for this critically important invention (instrument).
Clearly the measured mass spectra, made with the use of this instrument, of the natural atmosphere is proof that you both are absolutely wrong.
Now that I have corrected my error; I ask: Do you admit that you were absolutely wrong?
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
To the best of my recollection neither I nor James have ever denied that water molecules exist in the atmosphere. Our contention is that the water exists as a liquid in the form of nano droplets.
Do you know how a mass spectrograph works?
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You asked: Do I know how know how a mass spectrograph works?
Yes, I do. Have you ever looked at a mass spectra of the natural atmosphere?
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry Krause:
Relative to your and James McGill’s , , ,
JMcG:
James McGinn (not McGill)
Jerry:
, , , contention that the atmosphere does not contain water molecules,
Jerry:
Clearly the measured mass spectra, made with the use of this instrument, of the natural atmosphere is proof that you both are absolutely wrong.
JMcG;
Jerry, if it is clear to you then why is it you cannot explain it?
Herb:
Our contention is that the water exists as a liquid in the form of nano droplets. Do you know how a mass spectrograph works?
JMcG:
I think we have to go baby steps with Jerry. First let see if we can get him to acknowledge the implications of the H2O phase diagram on this issue.
Herb, I highly recommend that you listen to this recent episode of my podcast:
About My Coming Video
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/About-My-Coming-Video-ej9q4s
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Sorry I also forgot your last name as well as the mass spectrograph.
I do not have to explain the long known measurements, made by this instrument, of the masses of 18 and 19 amu as it also measured the masses of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide molecules in the same natural atmosphere. You have to explain what other molecules of the natural atmosphere could have these two molecular masses than H2O and HDO. (D–deuterium) molecules.
Have a good day, jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I believe that elasticity, where the attractive force increases with distance, is a result of the opposite behavior of the forces of matter (electric) and energy (magnetism/gravity) from which all objects are made.
When two opposite poles of magnets are attracted to each other the force between them and the size of the magnetic field increases as they try to combine into one magnet. When opposite charged particle are attracted to each other the sizeof the electric fields and their strengths decrease as they try to form a neutron.
When you force similar poles of magnets together the size and strength of their radiated magnetic fields decreases. With electric charges as you force similar charges together the size and strength of the field increases.
All atoms and molecules are a result of the interaction of these forces and their behavior is determined by the fields produced. The stronger energy force is attracted to positive electric fields and repels negative fields but both forces produce reactions in the other force as they change, producing a different equilibrium.
An atom is a positive nucleus surrounded by energy with bands of electrons around it that create weaker areas in the energy field. It is not only the attraction to the protons that hold the electrons in the atom but also the energy field. The quantum nature of electrons in atoms is a result of when you increase the energy of the electrons you also increase the strength of the confinement field produced by energy.
When the attractive forces between two objects pulls them together it increases the strength of the negative electric fields and electric force between them. This causes the attractive magnetic flux lines to bulge increasing the distance of energy flow between them. When you separate the two objects without breaking the attractive field between them the repelling electric field weakens and shrinks resulting the attractive flux lines becoming shorter and stronger producing elasticity
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and James,
It appears that neither of you have searched the internet for the mass spectra of the atmosphere.
I had no trouble finding this spectra posted at researchgate. .
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A mass spectrometer works by creating an ion of the material being tested. In order to do this the material must first be vaporized.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
The atmosphere is a gas; hence it does not need to be vaporized.
Do you really not know this?
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The water and other compounds in the atmosphere are not gases. Explain how they ionize these gases without adding enough energy to ionize the gases without converting these compounds into gases..
Herb
James McGinn
| #
I do not have to explain the long known measurements,
Nobody is asking you to explain measurements, moron. Explain how your measurements are relevant to the issue.
made by this instrument, of the masses of 18 and 19 amu as it also measured the masses of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide molecules in the same natural atmosphere. You have to explain what other molecules of the natural atmosphere could have these two molecular masses than H2O and HDO. (D–deuterium) molecules.
Have a good day, jerry
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Folks, can anyone ‘See’ what is wrong with the illustration at the start of this essay?
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Michael. Light is being reflected from moon to Earth from the dark
side of the moon. Naughty physics.
Which begs the question. On a full moon why is the center of the moon not brighter than closer to the edge where angles on the moon surface should be deflecting more of the suns light away from earth?
Best wishes all.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Good question. My answer is when one looks at the ‘limb’ of a sphere one is looking at a greater surface area relative to the area at the center of the hemisphere
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry. Thank you. The first part of my comment is possibly redundant because the drawing is not three dimensional.
If standing on earth is the sunlight coming from behind left shoulder (fullish moon) or from left field. Last quarter.
Cheers Jerry. Matt
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Some valid answers here. The sun is way too close and way too small, BUT the glaring error I see is that the moonlight is striking the Northern Hemisphere instead of being at 23 or so degrees to the equator.
Moon light follows much the same pattern as sunlight.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Had to look back at the first image to see that the moon is illuminating the north polar region. Which you remind us doesn’t make sense (isn’t logical).
Let me state at this point I am not trying to refute this. But, I have read, because I am following the MOSAiC Expedition, that the Moon is visible in the northern polar region during much of the time during the its winter season. Hence, the Moon is illuminating this region during its winter. Of course, the level of illumination is much lower than that during the summer when the Sun is continually illuminating the North Pole 24hrs a day from its Spring Solstice to its Fall Solstice.
These observations are important facts which cannot be debated. Details in critically important. And their discovery is what SCIENCE is all about.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
How ‘are’ became ‘in’ is beyond my understanding but I know that humans are error prone. So why should I be an exception???
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Have been reading about the regions of the sun and finding, as you stated, and it seems no one, including myself, knows much. But my answer to your question is that the image suggests that the radiation leaving the ‘sun’s surface’ is being concentrated as it travels from the sun to moon instead of becoming more diffuse as the radiation fills a larger volume of space as travels away from the sun’s surface.
Where, in fact, the radiation that illuminates the spherical surface of the moon comes from a very tiny surface area the the spherical sun. This is if I assume (to simplify) that all the solar radiation is emitted in a direction that is perpendicular to its spherical surface.
Then the light beingr scattered from the lunar surface is being scattered from a portion of its surface which cannot be illuminated by the solar radiation. Which causes me to look back at the sun which is the source of this light and to see the Sun’s entire hemisphere facing the moon is not emitting any radiation toward moon (if I ignore my gross assumption which is totally unrealistic).
But a fact is the sun is so far away from the moon that the lines (rays or paths) of photons illuminating the moon’s hemisphere facing the sun must be be parallel in column of space whose diameter is approximately that of the moon’s diameter. Which defines a small area area of the sun’s from which the photons must originate. However, these would not be all the photons being emitted from that surface.
And, one should not forget that the moon is a sphere which rotates with axis orientated so that it ‘polar regain never intercepts many photons relative the its surface at its equator.
Hence I conclude it is foolish to define this system with a simple 2-d image.
Please report how you judge I did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
The sun is a bit small.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
I didn’t see this and it is very important to nave the right perspective. Good work!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
For a Chemist you did not do that bad.
Indeed the ENERGY from the sun does radiate outwards, but not along perpendicular lines from the suns center, but from ALL of it’s surface. I don’t think we (Humans) as yet have the technology to determine if that energy diminishes as we look away from that perpendicular line from the surface.
This is particularly important as the Sun’s atmosphere is also very energetic.
This then raises the scepter of ENERGY , PHOTONS and other energetic particles that the sun ejects in great quantities in all directions all the time, The solar wind is definitely particles traveling at high velocity but NOT at light speed.
Is the Energy, the same as the photons, but with a different name?
I am of the belief that Energy in great quantities is everywhere all the time, just consider the energy in transit from the universe. Photons are emitted when energy excites matter.
This begs the question about the moonlight, Re-emitted energy or emitted photons?
Michael Logician
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the evaluation.
Relative to your question, I first preferred ‘scattered photons’. But upon more pondering I conclude ‘reflected photons’ by tiny, but macroscopically sized, surface particles having random orientations.. My definition of a photon is ‘pure energy’ which never stops moving until absorbed and converted into some other type of energy.
We must recognized the measurement that the moon’s surfaces has a quite small albedo. So must of the solar photons incident upon its surface are absorbed and primarily converted to sensible heat.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the evaluation.
Relative to your question, I first preferred ‘scattered photons’. But upon more pondering I conclude ‘reflected photons’ by tiny, but macroscopically sized, surface particles having random orientations.. My definition of a photon is ‘pure energy’ which never stops moving until absorbed and converted into some other type of energy.
We must recognized the measurement that the moon’s surfaces has a quite small albedo. So must of the solar photons incident upon its surface are absorbed and primarily converted to sensible heat.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Energy, is indeed everywhere as it is one of the two components (the other being matter) that make up the universe. Energy has a force associated with it as does matter (electrical) which is attracted to positive matter and is stronger (probably by a factor of psi, the universal constant) than the matter force. This causes the uneven distribution both energy and matter throughout the universe. Light is not energy but a disturbance in the force associate with the energy which causes a change in the force associated with matter.
The sun does not “burn” by fusion but by fission but by fission where the stronger attractive force of energy is able to split the neutrons that make up the matter of the sun.
My ideas are explained further in my PSI articles The Neutron Molecule and Why the Nuclear Forces Don’t Exist.
Herb
Reply
Walter Cook
| #
Hello Herb,
You guys are all way over my head. But when I read the words …a disturbance in the force…, I had to reply!
Have a Great Day,
Walter
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi All,
What we ‘Look’ at causes energy transfer from the object we are looking at entering our eyes where that energy stimulates nerves and our brain interprets that as light.
What we ‘See’ is a result of photons emitted from the objects directly in line with our eyeballs and causing nerve endings to trigger and energy is transmitted to our brain and we see stuff.
I am being deliberately obtuse here, but can you see the difference between looking at the moon or sun and looking at your hand?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You almost tricked me because the hand has a source of energy but our eye cannot detect the longer wavelength IR. But than again, we can see our hand with an with visible light from a source other than the sun.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael, John O’Sullivan, and PSI Readers,
To my knowledge Michael first began to make comments here at PSI because I had used an image from another PSI article in which there was a ‘black hole’ centered on the North Pole. And this other author and I considered the image was of clouds at about 80km altitude because we had not read the caption that was part of the image. And Michael in his comments began to explain to us the cause of the black hole had to do with the polar orbit’ of the satellites which allowed the total earth surface (except for that of the black hole). to be scanned.
A few readers and I have referred a grand science experiment known as the MOSAiC Expedition and I have read the short daily comments and study the daily image (photo) that anyone can see by going to the link of Follow MOSAiC. And right now the icebreaker is frozen in an ice floe that is located about 1.5 degrees latitude N. Near the center of the black hole where there have been not satellite observations.
John, I would suggest you would share these first two articles in which Michael makes his comments to remind us about all that which he informed us. For I have discovered there are two other sites (Polar Portal and Fluid Earth Viewer) which model (report) ‘measured’ ice thickness and the temperature and wind near the surface which seeming cannot be measured from satellites because of the ‘black hole.’ But now this ‘modeled’ data is actually being measured by the scientists involved in the MOSAiC Expedition. Real SCIENCE!!! Even if the scientists might try to twist this actual data to fit their wrong ideas
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry, John and all PSI readers.
Jerry has raised a good point. However the latest Satellite NOAA-20 has had it’s point of view changed in such a way that is can look at a wider angle than Noaa-19 looks.
IT IS IMPORTANT to understand that there are benefits of better data of the polar regions albeit with reduced accuracy , it has made the overlap EVERYWHERE else larger therefore the measurements are double counting a larger surface area.
That Dreadfully difficult beast known as Non-Euclidean Geometry is the culprit here of course.
In order to achieve an orbit that overflies the down-link station PRECISELY every 12 hours the satellite has to be at a very specific height above the earth to achieve an orbit time of 102 minutes. I forget the exact time interval.
The height above the surface determines the required aperture (Swathe) that the Satellite looks at, (NB I did not say what the satellite sees’).
Again non-Euclidean geometry comes into play, especially as our Earth is a squashed sphere!
So Jerry is right to ask what are they measuring, and perhaps more importantly what they are reporting as ‘Scientific’ measurements!
Michael Logician.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I have been trying to evaluate the new dimensions of the NOAA-20 satellite as it traverses close enough to the poles so as to obtain good data regarding the surface temperature amongst other data.
This is impossible to achieve given the published data.
If the new Swathe is just right then the swath will transcribe a vanishingly small 14 sided window, at either pole. To large and that 14 sided window represents a surface area that is being observed 14 times rather than once.
Too small and the swathe does not quite reach the poles, so measurements are not complete.
In the Just right case, the overlap over the rest of the globe will be quite large and reducing as the satellite overflies the equator.
Too large and Too small will have more serious effects upon the measurements.
Michael Logician.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The Polar Portal site gives detailed information from weather stations situated on Greenland. It uses 4 day Averages to display the current situation.
Unfortunately it then extrapolates Greenland weather across most of the Northern Hemisphere, all of Russia, N America and even down as far as China. It gets its information from which it produces these ‘Scientific’ statements from here : -:
http://www.ecmwf.int/
Which of course use Computer Models to show and predict the weather.
Michael Logician
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The Fluid Earth Viewer also uses computer simulated projections of the Earths weather and makes predictions based upon them.
If you LOOK here :-
https://fever.byrd.osu.edu/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/polarStereoNorth=0.00,90.00,800
You will see that there is a severe hurricane at the
North pole, there is a similar Cyclone at the South pole!
I could not identify which Satellite data they are using but if it is NOAA-19 then Jerry’s observation about their ‘Science’ is valid.
If they are using other data then their computer model is way out there in cloud cuckoo land.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
First, Fluid Earth Viewer is using current measurements to input in their computer model. And they are only reporting temperatures and winds near the Earth’s surface. I do not know what measurements they are actually using but I know what hourly measurements are available for them to use.
Every commercial airport in the world are regularly reporting fundamental meteorological measurements each hour.
Atmospheric Soundings are being made at most island groups in the Arctic Ocean and the continental land masses surrounding the ocean every 12 hours at the same time beginning with the temperature, wind (direction and speed), the atmospheric pressure at the land surface, and the relative humidity of the land surface.
Satellite measurements
The USA government funds four projects which measure fundamental meteorological data at many remote sites and hourly report these measurements. Hence the people at Ohio State University have had this extensive amount of data to test the validity of their program using the available data of 1,2, and 3 for the USA.
And now with the MOSAiC Expedition data the validity of their reported temperature and winds at the Polarstern specific locations during nearly a year. And I can compare a limited amount of this data and I conclude the reported data of the Fluid East Viewer is reasonably valid. But I consider a possible difference of a few degrees to be valid.
Which if you haven’t followed the MOSAiC Expedition and studied the data of 1, 2, and 4, maybe you are not yet qualified to judge the validity of the Fluid Earth Viewer’s results. And I know I do not actually know if they are actually using any data from 1, 2, and 3; all I know it is available.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I am Not questioning Fluid Earths Viewer Data, I am questioning the GROSS predictions of the entire Earths wind’s and Temperature when over 70% of the Earths surface is NOT being measured.
That bit that is Oceania!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
NOAA is measuring sea surface temperatures via buoys just as is being done in the Arctic. It is that I have not learned to access it because I have enough other data to try to digest.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
How many of those buoys are needed to measure sea surface temperature Jerry, 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000?
How many buoys does NOAA have deployed?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
At Follow MOSAiC on 9/13/2020 is a photo of an atmospheric halo phenomena commonly referred to as ‘sundogs’ which areas simply described in the brief narrative as being caused by ice crystals in the lower atmosphere. What is not referred to is the obvious white light high in the sky which is caused by ice crystals (cirrus) high in the atmosphere and a halo phenomena commonly referred to as a ‘sunpillar’. Which in this photo is not clearly apparent. But this vertical sunpillar is clearly due to the vertical ‘shaft’ of light being scattered by the ice crystals in the lower atmosphere being scattered back toward the surface by the ice crystals of a very diffuse cirrus overcast high in the atmosphere
I do not understand the quantitive reasoning that explains these phenomena to which I refer. Even though if there was no diffuse cirrus ice crystals high in the atmosphere there is not clear evidence of the existence of the sunpillar.
But I am sure you understand the quantize reasoning which must be don to explain that of which I only see the visible evidence.
So, I am right about what I see that you can explain?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Interesting photo Jerry, it has the hallmarks of Atmospheric lensing where the layers of the atmosphere have slightly different bending properties which is why the sun in that photo does not look spherical. I did see the very very faint shaft of light when I looked at the image with one eye. Try it out!
The Human brain is the master of what it reports as being seen when there is actually something else to be seen or nothing to be seen.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
The cyclones are reminiscent of the ‘hairy ball’ phenomenon. If you pardon the expression 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Sorry I have ignored this comment. And I have now looked at the images of Fluid Earth Viewer (FEV for convenience hereafter) . I can understand how you can interpret the images as being a hurricane. But from Follow Mosaic (FM hereafter) we know there are no hurricane type winds. And you and I know that the hurricane wings require the energy of condensed water vapor and clearly the near surface tempers reported by FEV severally limit this concentration of water vapor. I only use the ‘density’ if the wind ‘lines to indicate the direction of the wind and not its speed. This at the same time I do use the differences of the lines’ densities to indicate a difference in the wind’s speed I just went to FM and they reports a wind speed of 14.4m/s which for my study of the FM near the maximum speeds measured and reported.
Been some time since I quoted Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s book, who in his preface wrote that a common saying was: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition” as translation by Crew and de Salvio in 1914. And I have concluded that ‘accurate definition requires all the available information about a ‘system’ requires that one identifies all the factors known to be involved in the particular system being studied.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
And I now see that my comment did not appear just after your comment of 9/14/2020 at 1:39am
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Right now I cannot connect with PSI. So I am composing a comment about what is now being reported at Follow MOSAiC and Fluid Earth Viewer. And now that PSI is back I could read your comment which supports SCIENCE because you just reported an observation as you reasoned how you could see better. But I could like you to evaluate what follows.
First the Polarstern and its ice floe are within a degree of the North Pole and it is reported that during the past 23 hours it has moved 15km. However, when I look at its change of position where its progress is being reported is difficult to see that it has moved during the past 23 hours. I have observed its (icebreaker and ice floe) progress enough to conclude that this difference is because the it has been moving this direction and that direction so that the sum of the distances it moved is 15km while the result of this movement is maybe 1km.
Next I went to the Fluid Earth Viewer and saw that during the previous 24hrs the wind directions had been shifting. Now, I remind you and any other readers, that we should not just study the direction of the winds at the icebreaker’s location because the wind might be acting upon a ‘region’ of the ice sheet and more that just the icebreaker and its ice floe is drifting.
Next, the narrative of the day has been posted and it is reported that a thick portion of the ice has forced them to find a location with thinner ice. And they explained the thickness of the ice to be due to ‘ice rafting’. One ice floe being forced under another ice floe just as we understand has sometimes occurred in plate tectonics.
The scientists of MOSAiC Expedition clearly ignore the centrifugal effect which this close to the North Pole is not a significant factor. But it clearly does become a factor at, say, 80 degrees latitude. The surface wind is the principal factor influencing the drift of the ‘ice sheet made up of many ice floes near the pole but further from the pole the wind and centrifugal become factors which break up the ice sheet into smaller area ice floes. And further from the pole the tidal forces of the Moon and the Sun become contributing factors which also break the ice sheet into a MOSAiC of ice floes.
Its that simple if one considers everything that is ‘known’ (observed).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry, I suspect that there are some as yet un-explained things going on here!
Firstly this strange measured position movement of stationary objects when measured by eletronic means applies to other vessels.
I recently needed to establish the whereabouts of the ‘MV Lady Pamela’ which was docked on the Gold Coast. According to the electronically reported position is was bouncing around over quite a large range of positions, many of which were on land!
The plots are only reported at 24 hour intervals so I cannot comment on where it was between measurements and there were locations reported over 14 days, but clearly there are discrepancies in electronically derived positional locations.
I further suspect that these discrepancies will be worse at the poles than at the Equator!
I will even hazard a guess as to why this is observable. ‘Gravitational anomalies’ below the GPS satelites being used to ‘Fix’ the position of the object on the ground.
The GPS satellites have to obey the same gravitational influences as everything else. They will be in constant micro movement wrt everything else.
You reference to tidal forces is therefore a very telling comment of accurate measurement of objects on the ground as measured by satellites which are also being effected.
It is therefore important to use Sun time to record position, it will deliver the same answer at the same sun time, but wobble around a bit at other sun times.
Hope that explains the disappearance of 15km to your satisfaction!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Maybe you are correct about the MOSAiC Expedition’s ability to accurately locate their position. For just now I find that I cannot view the their reported positions for the present and previous days. So will wait to see what happens.
Have a good day, Jerry..
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Their position is being reported every minute and it is constantly just a bit different. The process of working out distance moved keeps adding up these small changes which is why it told you they had moved 15km in 24 hours. 15 km back and forth around their actual position!
The GPS system reports to the AIS system which is telling their base where it thinks they are every minute of the day.
And I have worked out that is is indeed a triangulation error that gives this small variation of position.
This is because when ever the GPS system has to find another satellite, the new calculations, especially that close to the pole gives a small variation and the up a bit down a bit oscillates as the GPS tries to lock on to this or that satellite.
A very interesting Observation Jerry.
Think they should be told of this?
Michael Logician.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Need to report that people of the MOSAiC Expedition just updated the position of the Polarstern on their map and they seem convinced that is location has not really changed for several days. I forgo to check the distances that they report it had drifted these several days. But if you or anyone is interested you can check it yourselves. Clearly this is SCIENCE which is the stated purpose of the PSI website.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and Robert Beatty
,
We (you and I and maybe PSI Readers) are considering a quite fundamental issue. Which is how do we see (measure). But we (only you and I) have not directly considered the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle.
Do you accept his reasoning. Which I understand is that seeing ‘light’ requires an interaction between a photon and some matter which changes the physical system of the matter. So what we see is what was which is not what is after the photon we detect with our eye (or some instrument) because the interaction between the matter and photon must change the system which existed before this interaction.
But I know that you (the logician) have written that you seem bothered by this fact of the actual (real) world.
Robert, one of your scholarly interests is the idea of a ‘black hole. The intellectual activity known as SCIENCE has some rules of reasoning. One is that for an idea to qualify as a scientific idea there must be some way to test the validity of an idea. Which by the definition of the idea of the Black Hole idea cannot be observed. Hence, the idea cannot be a ‘scientific’ idea.
The title of Michael’s article is ‘What If?’. This comment is simply my pondering about this question. Which I consider is a very good question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
If MOSAIC actually get to where the GPS repoorts the pole is it will be interesting to observe what the AIS system and the weather peoples computers make of their observations.
I am not quite sure of my facts, but I suspect that the weather mapping system is using what is in effect a cylinder rather than a sphere. when working out where the wind is blowing from and towards.
The notion that all points are South of where the GPS and AIS systems will be telling the computers makes for some wonderful ‘Rubbish in Rubbish out situations!
Michael Logician
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I have long considered that a better model for studying the Earth’s systems is a cylinder instead of a sphere because from experience I know that weather (climate) changes very rapidly between theTwin Cities of MY (about 45 degrees N) and Hibbing MN only about 200 miles further north. Especially during the winter season.
And I am not so quick to judge what is being observed (measured) to be Rubbish.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
And before you tell me that you have the experience of living well north of 45 degrees, I need to remind you that the weather and climate of that northern part of the world up to the southern parts of Norway and Sweden is well understood to be the result of the Gulf Stream’s influence.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes I have lived and worked at a town in Sweden, Skelleftea, very close to the arctic circle. In summer when the mosquitoes were the size of WWII airplanes and almost as deadly.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
And do you know that the state of the USA which has the greatest density of Swedish immigrants is Minnesota because this state’s climate at an average latitude of 45 degree N reminded them of the climate of Sweden, at a much greater latitude, with similar mosquitoes.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
If you go to Follow MOSAiC you will see that they report that the Polarstern and its ice floe has drifted about 80km during past 24 or so hours (yes that is right). So it seems something is very ‘funny’. For at the same time they report that the latitude and longitude (to minutes of a degree)
which make it seem that it has barely moved.
They also report that they are packing up and moving out. So it is possible the 80km was under power. But previously such movement was indicated by a different color. But a fact is that the expedition is over or nearly so.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry and PSI,ers’,
The MOSAIC vessel is very close to the north pole, therefore the GPS satellites that it can see are legion! Lots of choices for the electronics to decide to use, this is because the GPS satellites are in effect above the tropics so from the pole which ever way you look there are many satellites in view.
This then introduces triangulation differences of significant variation. Select three that way and get one result, select three at 90 degrees to the original three and get a different result. The GPS system tells the AIS system this is where we are. AIS logs the new position as being a few meters left or right of where the ship was previously. then the ship points in a slightly different direction and the satellite with the largest signal strength is again different and yet a new position is reported.
These AIS reports are a minute by minute sequence of positions reported by different sets of satellites and the distance traveled accumulates even though there is no actual movement.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and PSI readers,
I really do not know if any PSI readers are reading our conversation but that is their problem. For you clearly know and understand things which I do not know and understand. But on the other hand I have much practical experience, as you do, but it seem to imply that a few meters of uncertainty makes an error which has practical implications. It does not in my opinion. When is went to Follow MOSAiC this morning I see the Polarstern is headed east which appears to be the shortest distance through ice to get to open water. Save fuel this way instead of heading the shorter direct distance to their intended port of call in Norway to the South.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
Another aspect of the positional measurment of the MOSAIC ship when it was in the ice and effectively stationary, albeit going where the Ice went.
That is the fact that GPS and AIS measurments are dependant upon the speed of light and some very accurate colcks and therefore the distance from known locations, that is the absolute position of the GPS satelites from which time, therefore distance measurments and triangulation can establish the position of the vessel by using distance from three or more GPS satellites.
It occured to me just last night, that the triangulation method uses a perfect sphere to calculate position.
Last time I checked the Earth is a squashed sphere!
The positional location as determined by GPS that close to the poles is therefore subject to rather significant error, which itself is dependent upon which set of many satellites the system has locked on to.
A GPS system at locations below 65 degrees North or south can see just a few GPS satellites, as you get closer to the poles more and more GPS Satellites become visible.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You have written about the the uncertainty of GPS location observations being made near the poles more than once. Yet, I cannot remember you ever quantizing this uncertainty as a good logician should be able to do. For I certainly am unable to begin to do this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
FM has just reported they had just pasted through a storm with strong winds and that their position was presently 86N and 76E. And according to their map on which they show the location of the Polarstern and the extent of the ice sheet, it seems they are well within the boundary of the ice sheet even though they are turned from the eastward course to a south ward course. Which refutes my explanation for the initial eastward course
However, when I go to the Polar Portal and its map of the extent of the ice sheet, it seems the Polarstern could now be in open water. Of course, the uncertainty of my estimates is great.
But when I go to the Fluid Earth View, which does allow one to pick a location and gives you the lat. and long.. with good precision. Because the narrative of FM does give their location (lat. and long.) at the time of the posting with good precise, I can see the strong winds of the storm which they had passed through.
So I must question your doubts about the validity of the various efforts of these various projects’ attempts to make valid measurements and observations with reasonable certainty. Certainly better than nothing.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
The inaccurcies bought about by their proximity to the north pole in very small a few yuards this way and that way, BUT reported every MINUTE!
Thus the distance traveled every minute is ACCUMULATED. a few yards this way a few yards that way adds up to a potentially significant distance travelled while never acturally being more that a few yards different at any time.
The AIS system records distance traveled every minute so even when stationary in real time the inherant inaccuracy of the GPS system when it switches from this set of satellites to a different set of satellites gives the strange effect you are observing.
There are good descriptions of How GPS works using triangulation available at many sites.
This is GPS for the man in the street.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/gps/en/
Michael Logician
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I have been pondering some of what you wrote about the problems of the GPS because I obviously do not understand what you have written.
The daily Follow Mosaic posting has a podcast which has an animation showing the sun (the larger white disk) rising and setting during a period of about 10 ten days during June while the moon (the smaller white disk) rising being almost stationary over the horizon. We (I) know the sun does set during this time period where the Polarstern.
I cannot wrap my mind around how they ‘screwed up’ in ‘programing’ this animation. Relative to your comments I believe the signal from a GPS satellite over the equator must tangential to the ocean’s surface when the sun is nearest the horizon and less so when the sun is highest above the horizon during a 24 hour period. And I have pondered that the actual difference between these two angles is quite small making the error of where the observer is relatively quite (?) large.
Am I getting close to what you have written about the problems with the GPS accuracy when the location is near the Pole?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Just did what I should have done before composing my previsous comment. So now I know NASA’s simple minded explanation. I have a friend who is a mechanical engineer and worked for Garmin for a number of years. And I had just asked him if these 30+ navigational satellites orbited above the equator and he stated that was the case. But now I see that NASA’s image shows that some these navigation satellites appear to be in a variety of orbits and one even in the unstable ‘polar’ orbit which you have informed me is unstable.
Is my friend correct or is NASA’s image correct?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I have a friend who spent some time in a forest service lookout tower. And during times of ‘electrical storms’ she had a stool with glass insulators to stand on. And as I remember her description, she saw an ‘atmospheric glow’. Which I now have read is termed a ‘gas discharge’.
We (you and I) have questioned the possible source of light by which the images of diffuse ‘dust clouds’ can be seen by the Hubble Telescope.
I ask: Do you think this light is the result of the gas discharge produced by the chaotic motions of gas molecules and dust particles?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have actually seen just one instance of Ball Lightning, which I believe is a collection of energised particles a sort of local plasma, Silent, Mobile and about a few yards around. Really weird. There had been a fierce wind prior to the thunderstorm so there was a lot of dust in the air.
Your Forest service friend was probably seeing what may or may not detach into Ball lightening.
Michael Logician
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
I believe that elasticity, where the attractive force increases with distance, is a result of the opposite behavior of the forces of matter (electric) and energy (magnetism/gravity) from which all objects are made.
Well, this is wrong. I will be making a video to explain what is right. The right answer starts with first understanding the nature of the “polar” force between H2O molecules. Only when you have an accurate and explicit understanding of that can you have any possibility of understanding what is going on with this completely screwed up part of science.
Unfortunately much of science is completely dominated by morons who can’t distinguish their imagination from objective reality.
6Truth Monkeys sucking on the thumb of consensus
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Truth-Monkeys-sucking-on-the-thumb-of-consensus-eglt2k
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Elasticity on an atomic or molecular level is required by the first law of thermodynamics. When two atoms with equal mass and velocity collide head on they do not come to a stop (destruction of energy) but recoil with the same velocity in opposite directions exhibiting perfect elasticity. This requires that the forces that make the atom or molecules regenerate to their original state. If the energy of the two objects colliding exceeds the forces forming the objects (accelerators) the objects are destroyed and there is no elasticity. The same thing holds true with larger structures.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
I would refer to what you describe as reflectivity. Regardless, I am talking about a different phenomena, as described.
James McGinn / Genius
Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ignorance-About-Water-Begets-Ignorance-About-Storms-ea4fmi
Reply