Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JLindgaard on 29/08/2022 11:09:09
-
Since I am not able to post an external link then I can't ask a question. The only answer I would receive would be an opinion and that's not very scientific.
But I can go with stupid. I have to ask, do these numbers have any meaning? I can't say I discovered something but have to ask someone if they can find meaning in work I've done. I find that insulting. Since it is information not found in a textbook I cannot say I know this. Forum rules require me to ask what this is or means when I'll say I discovered something.
Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^2.007 = 0.0067 bars
Yet because it's not in a textbook the obvious relationship has to be ignored. And if my perpetual motion machine works, then it was invented in 1712 but would have to say it can't work today because someone said it's impossible. And that would be the same person who said that there is no relationship between the atmospheric pressure of Venus, Earth and Mars.
Are you aware that both Newton and Einstein missed something? It's rather obvious like the math I posted. My question is why has this relationship between 3 rock type planets with atmospheres been missed?
If my Bessler's Wheel build works as the prototype suggests then scientists will have missed it is possible, powered flight is possible and the relationship between the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. Samuel Langley proved powered flight wasn't possible and he was America's foremost scientist. It's okay though. I was held back in school in the U.S. (am from Dayton, Ohio) because I had a Norwegian accent. I don't think people should be discouraged from doing something.
I mention this because it will become well known that I've been attacked for over a decade because a scientist said that gravity has no energy so perpetual motion (conservation of the Earth's gravitational energy) is impossible. I accept what Einstein said and astronomers have supported.
I have asked an astronomer to work with me on something. They have my notes, etc. to consider.
-
do these numbers have any meaning?
Not as far as I can tell.
if my perpetual motion machine works
It won't.
-
Search this;
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
Chapter 5 Scientific Summary
Then scroll down to where it says "Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4)".
I am pursuing an experiment to explain that. While it should be the IPCC's job or someone else who
researches atmospheric chemistry, apparently I am the only who understood what it suggests.
And a working Bessler's Wheel will allow me to pursue my experiment.
Don't take this personally. This is how I remind myself why I'm tolerating what I'm going through. And with what the IPCC doesn't understand, it basically allows for a new field in science. If you noticed, I mentioned astrophysics (relative atmospheric pressures) and also atmospheric chemistry and physics
(atmospheric forcings allowing for recovery of the ozone layer).
-
With this;
Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^2.007 = 0.0067 bars
2.007 should've been squared so it is 4.03 like this;
Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^4.03 = 0.0067 bars
so the math is 100% correct. The global moderator did not realize the difference between
the orbit of Venus and Mars. The 2.007 value is within the perigee and apogee of Mars' relationship
to Venus's orbit. A little problem solving would've allowed for my mistake to have been realized
because the atmospheric pressure of Mars is about 6 millibars.
While this is rather basic, the Earth is about 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus. The inverse
square law is used and 1.38^2 = 1.91. The same is done for Mars. The further a planet is away from
the Sun the less the Sun can influence it.
Yet it is easier to ridicule someone rather than consider they forgot to factor one value in an equation properly. This is like when I read NOAA's report on ozone depletion. When I saw their quote about the IPCC's report, I realized that a process would allow for a common source. Yet neither photolytics or the halogen process allows for a common source.
If they did, someone would've written a paper about it and would have made it known. This hasn't happened yet. It's kind of like considering atmospheric pressures having a mathematical relationship. We all have seen how that went and it didn't go well for me.
-
Conservation of energy, and many of the other conservation laws, are in a somewhat unique position in physics in that they are supported by a mathematical proof called Noether's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Theorems, such as the Pythagorean theorem, are proofs that hold so long as their initial axioms hold. In the case of Noether's theorem, conservation laws are guaranteed to hold so long as certain symmetries in nature hold. In the case of energy, that symmetry is time symmetry. Unfortunately, I don't have a good grasp on exactly what all that means, but mathematicians seem to understand how it guarantees conservation of energy.
The only exception I can think of is the metric expansion of the Universe. As best as I understand it, that represents a violation of time symmetry because it means space now isn't the same as space later (it's larger at a later time). As such, light red-shifts as the Universe expands and that energy is just lost. However, perpetual motion machines (such as the type you speak of) don't involve manipulation of space-time in any way. As such, we know that Noether's theorem would apply to them and so they cannot violate conservation of energy.
-
As far as perpetual motion goes, on YouTube, search James Lindgaard. That is my channel.
You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º. I am now building a display model.
I am not allowed to post a link to my work which shows that momentum can be conserved.
-
You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º.
You mean this?
What you show in the video is a long way off from perpetual motion. Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.
-
The global moderator did not realize the difference between the orbit of Venus and Mars.
You can not expect the moderators to read minds.
There are other planets in the solar system.
Does your observation also work for them?
If not, then what you have discovered is a coincidence.
-
I can't read minds either. I am hoping an astronomer at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln will be interested. I've made her aware of what I think. I'd like to give her a chance to think about it.
The math I showed would support that all planets are influenced proportionally. I actually looked for that relationship to see if gravity or other attribute associated with the Sun allowed for it.
p.s., the wheel rotated over 90º. The display model is designed to repeat that process. That concept
can get complicated because it uses a "2nd wheel". The basic idea is that leverage is converted into torque. To get a little "funny"; Newton's First Law of Motion;
every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
The disc which is not a part of the wheel does not allow for symmetrical behavior. And I think it is a
"trick" piece of engineering. And Gottfried Leibniz was a witness of Bessler's. And I think that was in court when Bessler was tried as a fraud and was found innocent.
A guy published a paper at Cornell University about it. It was known in German language publications but not outside of a German speaking region.
If you search Cornell University and this "The mechanical career of Councillor Orffyreus, confidence man"
or Johann Bessler. And then you can see what other papers the author published. The person is Jenkins, A.
-
I can't read minds either. I am hoping an astronomer at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln will be interested. I've made her aware of what I think. I'd like to give her a chance to think about it.
I don't think she will be interested.
Where did the number 0.9062 come from?
By the way no where are you using the inverse square law, that would involve 1/x^2 not x^2.
Did you exclude Mercury and Jupiter because they do not fit with your equation?
This is basically just numerology without any physics.
-
You'll be able to see that my prototype rotates over 90º.
A 90 degree rotation sure ain't perpetual motion...
-
"A 90 degree rotation sure ain't perpetual motion..."
Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work. Kind of why I am building a display model as I mentioned.
And the experiment that I'm pursuing. One of the reasons for pursuing Bessler's Wheel.
https://climate-cycling.com/?page_id=33
Possibly why I should stay offline while I work. Between Bessler's Wheel and my experiment, science doesn't allow for either one. And yet it's okay if scientists don't understand why 3 GHGs are helping the ozone layer to recover. With climate change, that should be made known so that a solution can be considered. But when the IPCC says "For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases."
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
Scroll down to CO2, N2O and CH4 and you'll find the section.
-
p.s., the wheel rotated over 90º. The display model is designed to repeat that process. That concept
can get complicated because it uses a "2nd wheel". The basic idea is that leverage is converted into torque. To get a little "funny"; Newton's First Law of Motion;
every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
I predict that it will not work (because of Noether's theorem). Do feel free to post a video of it working when you get it finished, though.
Venus is 93.079 bars if its atmospheric pressure is 1,350 psi.
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1.91 = 1.013 bars
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^4.03 = 0.0067 bars
so the math is 100% correct.
As distances from the Sun increase, the exponent will increase as well. This means that your equation predicts thinner and thinner atmospheres for planets as you get further from the Sun. However, the gas giants have thicker atmospheres than Mars, so it doesn't work for them. It also doesn't work for Venus itself:
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1
93.079 bars * (0.0938)^1
93.079 bars * 0.0938
= 8.731 bars
Mercury, with an even smaller exponent, would be predicted by your equation to have a thicker atmosphere than its (already incorrect) prediction for Venus. But Mercury's atmospheric pressure is far, far less than 8.731 bars. So the fact that your equation works for just two planets and fails for the rest of them strongly suggests that it is a coincidence.
A 90º shows that it can work
It doesn't, actually. It's easy enough to build a wheel that will turn only 90 degrees by mounting a weight on one side. What your wheel has to do in order to actually qualify for perpetual motion is to keep that going over and over again without end and without external energy input. Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.
-
Just a quick question. Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?
I have taken time to consider things but then I am primarily about my atmospheric chemistry experiment.
I think that is actually what matters.
-
Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work.
Nope, not even close.
Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?
Could be, what is absolutely clear however is that your equation doesn't work.
-
I'm going to take it easy and enjoy my work. If I am in the position to say that the IPCC did not make it known about
GHGs role in the recovery of the ozone layer, that would change the climate change debate. The preservation of the ozone layer has not been a part of that discussion.
-
Not a very intelligent comment. A 90º rotation shows that it can work.
A rock falling over moves through 90 degrees, but nobody would claim that it's a perpetual motion machine.
More importantly, you are missing the fact that perpetual motion machines are impossible. We have the maths to prove it.
You should, at least, stop pretending that you are doing science.
You should probably also stop wasting your time.
I am primarily about my atmospheric chemistry
The atmospheres of the planets are made from different materials.
Prior to the evolution of photosynthetic life on Earth the atmosphere would have contained much more CO2 and no O2 so it would have been denser. We are currently changing it too.
So, the density you are calculating from is set pretty arbitrarily by life
-
Just a quick question. Is it possible that Mercury is too hot to have much of an atmosphere?
Venus is hotter than Mercury and still has an atmosphere.
The reason most likely has to do with its low gravity and the strong solar wind that would blow an atmosphere off over time.
-
The reply I received from the astronomer I have been in contact with.
Rebecca Harbison
Mon, Aug 29, 9:04 PM (14 hours ago)
to me
Just a heads up. The term just started here, so going through emails is going to be slow for things not work related. So if I don't respond, it's because I had to get to my students first.
-----------------------------
"I may have sent this e-mail outside of my normal working hours. I never expect an answer outside of yours."
Dr. Rebecca Harbison
I made her aware of your concerns regarding Mercury. She will need to confer with her colleagues. Since she is an astronomer then she will be aware of the references I made. And this includes Einstein's 1915 paper on general relativity and how astronomers verified Einstein's hypothesis.
What does that mean exactly? We are discussing science, right? And since she and her colleagues are astronomers,
it would be best for them to consider things first before I say anything more. It would be rude on my part to ask her to consider something and then for me to go and discuss it with other people.
With atmospheric pressures having what I believe to be a relationship I would say impacts the experiment that I am pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. This is where I need to be patient and finish my build. Then I can pursue my own work.
-
Before you discuss it with someone who is clearly busy, you should answer the points made by those of us with time on our hands.
-
What you would need to consider is this would be her field of expertise. Why she has a PhD.
I can point a flaw out to you in failed logic. And this has to do with global warming. Does UV
radiation heat water? It doesn't. Does UV radiation have energy? It does. Does the ocean absorb
UV radiation. It does.
How can something absorb energy and not have its kinetic changed as a result? But that is accepted
science. With the information that I've given Dr. Rebecca Harbison, I show a similar thought given
accepted science and what is observed.
With global warming, over 90% of the extra heat in global warming is in the ocean. For the atmosphere
to heat the ocean wouldn't it need a greater increase in heat to heat the ocean? If the ocean is warming
faster than the atmosphere then wouldn't that be the source of heat?
So as you can see, disagreeing with accepted science when other accepted science disagrees with it allows
for a confusing situation. And with Dr. Rebecca Harbison I did explain to her where such a disagreement
might exist in astronomy/astrophysics. Her education will allow her to consider this and as I mentioned, it does
involve https://earthsky.org/human-world/may-29-1919-solar-eclipse-einstein-relativity/
Why I'd like to give her and her colleagues time to consider the conflict (in my opinion) I made her aware of.
Who knows, maybe 2022 might become like 1919 for astronomers when it involves the same work?
And as bored chemist said, we have nothing to do. And an experiment that I am pursuing is in chemistry. Atmospheric chemistry is often pursued by scientists with a degree in organic chemistry.
This could explain why scientists haven't been able to consider my experiment. It's that it's a different type of chemistry. What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.
It is serious work and I have invested a lot of time in it. That is my primary focus. And if I am right then my experiment would show that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. And then the process I've hypothesized might be taught in schools. I do explain my hypothesis on my website. This is because I can quote and link to scientific research. And people can form their own opinions about it.
That is what I did with my "free" time. I didn't ask for someone to give me an answer when I knew I would disagree with them. And with CO2 and H2O, they are not considered as NMVOCs. My experiment would change that. I do cite research that mentions that there are NMVOCs outside what is known by today's understanding of atmospheric chemistry.
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, if my Bessler build works then some of the scientists that I cited might want to work with me because it'd further their own research. I like the thought of that, working with other people.
-
What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.
I am afraid that reaction is about as likely as your perpetual motion machine working.
-
Why she has a PhD.
Do you think PhDs are rare around here?
Your perpetual motion machine can not possibly work.
What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.
That reaction goes the other way. Formaldehyde is combustible.
-
if my Bessler build works
Which part of "it will not work" are you failing to understand?
-
That reaction goes the other way. Formaldehyde is combustible.
If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?
Why do you do this?
(At least i now know why you have writen so much messages...)
-
@All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.
-
I found some similar wheel on internet, if this can help you :
-
If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?
My guess is he said it to help the guy understand.
-
@All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.
Just to let you know; it is also guaranteed to fail even if you do try.
-
My guess is he said it to help the guy understand.
So why do he not give directly the full explanation instead of these mysterious sentences ?
-
So why do he not give directly the full explanation instead of these mysterious sentences ?
I don't know. Maybe he is trying to get JLindgaard to get a little initiative and at at least google the reaction?
-
@All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.
By all means, do the experiment if you can. It's a learning experience if nothing else.
-
If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?
Why do you do this?
So that they get a bit more knowledge of chemistry. these mysterious sentences ?
Not everyone thinks chemistry is a mystery.
-
It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.
-
Not everyone thinks chemistry is a mystery.
You dont understand me well.
It is not chemistry that is mysterious, it is your sentences talking about chemistry.
-
It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.
When Bored Chemist said that formaldehyde is combustible, he means that formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the exact opposite of the supplied equation (which he also already said).
-
When Bored Chemist said that formaldehyde is combustible, he means that formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the exact opposite of the supplied equation (which he also already said).
So it was mysterious for you too.
Because if you think this you missed the point of naming some reactant as some "combustible".
Altought the reaction can occur in the opposite direction during photosynthesis, it can definitivly not spontaneously within some volume, even if you change the pressure, temperature or molarity parameters.
Some chemical reactions can occur in only one direction.
These reactions are called irreversible reactions. The reactants can change to the products, but the products cannot change back to the reactants. These reactions are like making a cake. The ingredients of a cake—such as eggs and flour—are the reactants. They are mixed together and baked to form the cake, which is the product (see Figure below). The cake can’t be “unbaked” and “unmixed” to change it back to the raw eggs, flour, and other ingredients. So making a cake is irreversible.
Baking a cake is an irreversible reaction
Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.
https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/5.14/primary/lesson/reversible-reactions-ms-ps/
-
So it was mysterious for you too.
No, I understood it perfectly well.
Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.
He never said otherwise.
-
I have trouble accessing my website but this is 1 quote is use;
Since none of the above possibilities seems to explain the model-measurement discrepancy, it appears that the model’s CH2O production rate is too small. Uncertainties in parameters controlling the known source channels do not appear large enough to explain more than a 25% discrepancy in [CH2O]. We therefore postulate that at least one source of CH2O is missing from the standard model. The median missing CH2O source is about 0.4 ppbv d/span>1and is relatively constant with altitude between 0 and 8 km in the NARE 97 domain.[37]</p>
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896
What I am aware of is that things might work a little differently when both atmospheric pressure and temperature drop.
This then might get into J-T coefficients which have little meaning at room temperature and pressure. There are other considerations as well which I haven't mentioned. And if anyone has considered that in a cold, low pressure environment that CO2 becomes a source of heat/energy. Also the emission and absorption spectrums of CO2 and H2O
basically allow for something like Coulomb's law. This is where the emission spectrum of CO2 would be a positive charge while the absorption spectrum of H2O would be a negative charge.
For the purpose of the experiment that I am pursuing, I am hypothesizing that due to a lack of background radiation
that CO2 and H2O can be attracted to each other. And while CO2 has a double covalent bond, a water molecule has sufficient kinetic energy to break both bonds. Basically there is nothing that prevents an H2O molecule from replacing the O2 molecule in a CO2 molecule.
And with CH2O, it has a similar relationship with its own emission and absorption spectrums while it's emission spectrum is stronger between 400 - 450.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-emission-spectrum-from-formaldehyde_fig2_258376834
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Formaldehyde-absorption-spectrum-in-the-UV-range-re-plotted-from-the-data-of-Meller-et_fig5_287158085
And as I mentioned, I believe that as temperatures drop and background radiation decreases then emission and absorption spectrums can be comparable to opposing charges such as a polar molecules have. In the upper troposphere temperatures can drop to -40º C. or F. The tropopause is colder.
-
No, I understood it perfectly well.
So why dident you say it clearly ?
He never said otherwise.
He even never said anything.
-
So why dident you say it clearly ?
I don't know what about my statement was unclear, honestly. Is there a language problem? I know English isn't your native language. Perhaps that's why you didn't understand him or me.
He even never said anything.
I, again, don't know what you think he neglected to explain. He said that the equation posted by the OP generally proceeds in the opposite direction because formaldehyde is combustible. I don't know what's unclear about that.
-
And as I mentioned, I believe that as temperatures drop and background radiation decreases then emission and absorption spectrums can be comparable to opposing charges such as a polar molecules have. In the upper troposphere temperatures can drop to -40º C. or F. The tropopause is colder.
I think (but i am not a specialist) that even if the reaction you propose is irreversible, it can occur like you say in the high atmosphere, perhaps due to the fractionation of the molecules when some cosmic radiations or sun radiation hit them.
The reactions occuring in the atmosphere are very complex because they depend on the altitude, so some reaction can deplete ozone here and produce some at other place.
There are lots of reactions occuring there and ionisation must be taken in account.
So the reaction you show can occur (globaly speaking) if you consider some other intermediate reactions. You can consider that some amount of the molecules can produce some amount of the others using intermediate reactions.
-
I, again, don't know what you think he neglected to explain. He said that the equation posted by the OP generally proceeds in the opposite direction because formaldehyde is combustible. I don't know what's unclear about that.
You see.
You say it again, you say "generaly", so you dont have yet understand...
It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all (not even sometime, so not "yes generally but if we change pressure or temperature it is ok..."), because it cant, it is a combustion EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.
-
It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all, because it cant, it is a combustible EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.
Yes, the equation for the combustion of formaldehyde is:
CH2O + O2 → CO2 + H2O
Formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the equation that Bored Chemist was talking about. What OP was talking about was the opposite equation:
CO2 + H2O → CH2O + O2
Bored Chemist was pointing out that the equation that OP posted isn't the one that occurs, but that the opposite (the combustion of formaldehyde) is what happens instead.
-
What I mention and this does matter, at elevation and not at ground level. What the bored chemist does not understand is that if my experiment works then it will be a new process/principle in science. And at the same time it would explain what was in the IPCC's 2013 report on climate change.
When the IPCC associated CO2, N2O and CH4 with recovery of the ozone layer, the rate of change would show that relationship while suggesting a common source. And I doubt any research or experiment such as I am pursuing has been done.
And what needs to be considered is that the IPCC suggests a common unknown source while the following research states that an unmeasured precursor for formaldehyde is not known. My experiment could explain both observations and it is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ while this quote comes from research I have cited.
However, while the differences between the two CH2O instruments are somewhat larger than expected, there is a systematic under prediction by the model, and the median measured [CH2O] is a factor of 2 larger than calculated. An analysis of the model uncertainties indicates that no single model input parameter could be responsible for such a discrepancy if the stated uncertainties for these parameters are correct. We conclude that the model-measurement differences are not due to some fundamental error in the methane oxidation scheme. A consideration of the possible reasons for the model under prediction of CH2O indicates that the error most likely is in the model source terms. We suggest one possible source of the model under estimate is its failure to account for unmeasured formaldehyde precursor species such as oxygenated VOCs.[44]
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896
Just an FYI (for your information), such interactions might occur at sea level (MBL, marine boundary layer) but no one thought to try my experiment.
-
It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.
Did you not realise that everyone here already understands that?
-
Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.
Not exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscopic_reversibility
The point I was making is the the equilibrium favours carbon dioxide and water by many orders of magnitude at any accessible temperatures and pressures.
In this case, Le Chatelier's Principle tells me that pressure won't make much difference.
So this
It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all (not even sometime, so not "yes generally but if we change pressure or temperature it is ok..."), because it cant, it is a combustion EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.
is wrong. it overstates the case.
But the reality is that the reaction goes in the wrong direction for the OP'sclaim
What the bored chemist does not understand is that if my experiment works then it will be a new process/principle in science.
It will not work.
You might as well say "if my idea works then we will all travel by flying unicorn". You are not doing science.
No, I understood it perfectly well.
It seems that the only one who doesn't understand it is Deecart.
-
It is strange when education states you can do nothing because we already know what is allowed for. And it is clear that the IPCC does not know what allows for their observation. Is this what the over 700 scientists associated with the IPCC decided, if what's known does not allow for our observations then we will not discuss it? That does seem to be the situation.
How are known scientific observations that have no known cause understood? What I am pursuing did start with my "discovering" NOAA's report on the depletion of the ozone layer. I think this is what needs to be considered first. And in another part of this forum I posted research that stated that the warming of the early 20th century is different than that near the end of the 20th century. And that research paper cites IPCC 2001 as well.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82400.msg686238#new
And why I found NOAA's report was because the depletion of the ozone layer was not considered a factor in global warming. And with the research paper that I cited and their saying and I quote;
The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001). end quote
And the research paper that cited the IPCC is in my other post on this website (I did link it).
And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up. The information suggests an anthropogenic cause since circa 1978. And that agrees with depletion of the ozone layer. I never thought I'd say that the IPCC knew this but now have the evidence. And it is in their own 2001 report.
-
And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up.
I was kind of expecting to see a conspiracy theory raise it's head at some point.
The information suggests an anthropogenic cause since circa 1978. And that agrees with depletion of the ozone layer. I never thought I'd say that the IPCC knew this but now have the evidence. And it is in their own 2001 report.
Your inability to understand the paper is not the same as a cover up
-
In the global average, these observed 20th century warming events—both in the early mid-century and at the end of the century—have been well represented by climate models. The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053
That is the 2nd paragraph of the introduction quite clearly stating the warming period 1920 - 1940 was mostly in the northern latitudes.
From the 1st paragraph;
Between the 1920s and the 1940s, a large warming event occurred in the Arctic, concentrated to the high latitudes; this event was comparable to the recent 30-year warming.
And both statements combined;
Between the 1920s and the 1940s, a large warming event occurred in the Arctic, concentrated to the high latitudes; this event was comparable to the recent 30-year warming.
In the global average, these observed 20th century warming events—both in the early mid-century and at the end of the century—have been well represented by climate models. The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001).
The IPCC considered both events to be from different causes. That rules out CO2 and supports ozone depletion. From 1950 - 1980 there was basically no warming while CO2 levels steadily rose. And ozone depletion is what led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
-
And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up.
Please do not post conspiracy theories, they can lead to a ban.
-
To be clear, I support the IPCC and the fact that CO2 is causing global warming. I just found it disturbing that scientists would publish a research paper saying that the warming that occurred from the 1920's to the 1940's would say "natural climate variance" and then cite research the IPCC did to legitimize their research paper.
Maybe those scientists should be investigated for making false claims? And in my original post, I was only concerned with showing that the IPCC research has led to an interesting possibility in atmospheric chemistry.
And natural climate variance is not understood just as why ice ages occur is not understood. My hypothesis of how the Earth's moment of inertia and either glaciers or the lack there of explains my position quite clearly I believe. What led me to the research paper that makes questionable statements about research the IPCC has done.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82400.msg686238#new
And as for my interest in ozone, it was to support research that the IPCC has made known concerning gasses associated with the natural occurrence of ozone and its precursor/source gasses. I think my familiarity with research on formaldehyde should be considered.
It has been my opinion that if CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer than as I posted earlier in this thread, the IPCC should be discussing that as well but have ignored that issue. My post specifically commenting on that is very short. If reducing CO2 emissions impacts the recovery of the ozone layer then that should be a part of the discussion.
As for what I believe, I believe that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 and then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4.
As for what scientists wrote in their research paper, my opinion does not matter. Whose opinion does matter is the scientists who wrote that research paper and the IPCC research they are citing.
And it is not for me to say if what those scientists published means. I have my own research that I have been pursuing and will continue to pursue and that is if CO2 supports the recovery of the ozone layer which the IPCC's research suggests it does.
@Colin2B, as you see, I don't need an opinion on published research papers. I have no control over what those scientists said or research that they have cited. What I say simply will not matter when it comes to that research paper and all research associated with it.
-
As for what I believe, I believe that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 and then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4.
But it doesn't.
You can get a broadly similar reaction driven by photosynthesis.
It was once put forward as how plants made carbohydrates.
But it's outdated and it failed about a hundred years ago..
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde
-
And now you're over simplifying it. Are you suggesting that if we put CO2 and H2O in a Joules-Thomson throttling process that they'd form CH2O + O2 before polymerizing C6H12O6? I have considered that since the photosynthesis process is not known. If the O2 is removed then that would increase the vacuum/absence of background radiation?
I have to say I do not support solar radiation breaking the double covalent bonds of a CO2 molecule. That would be radiation entering into a plants cell. That would cause it to burn and that hasn't been observed. That is one reason why if my experiment works in the MBL then it might be a more common phenomena than what has been considered which is it hasn't been considered.
And it might be the lack of an appropriate explanation in photosynthesis that encouraged my belief that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 is basically a new process. Some might not be familiar with C6H12O6 being a simple carbohydrate. If you look at the inside of a plant's cell, when it absorbs solar radiation, can it expand creating a localized J-T field?
Joules-Thomson was 1852. And can a plant create such an effect? While I do consider that I do not know enough about plant physiology to have anything more than an opinion.
For considering CO2 + H2O, what you considered is something for people to think about.
@All, one reason why I refer to a Joules-Thomson field or throttling process is simply because there is no research involving various types of molecules. And could plants mimic such an environment because its cells limit background radiation in a given field? It would take a botanist/organic chemist and possibly an atomic physicist to consider that. I am mostly focused a gasses in the Earth's environment. Hopefully everyone understands this and at the same time, what might be true in our atmosphere might be true in a plant/tree.
-
@Bored chemist, just a thought. Has anyone put pure CO2 and a limited amount of water in a Joules-Thomson throttling process? That's my simple answer. The kinetic energy of the CO2 wouldn't allow for water to become a liquid.
Then what happens when 2 gasses expand in a vacuum while the temperature is dropping? This actually gets into what you know. How do we consider angular (orbital, rotational) velocities relative to slower linear velocities? How do gasses in a field react to such changes?
Myself, I don't know. Kind of why I'm pursuing an experiment. Because I keep saying Jules-Thomson, it's possible no one has considered what effect their research has outside of their J-T coefficient. And with my interests, I consider the upper troposphere up through the tropopause to be a similar effect. Why does the temperature drop?
-
Are you suggesting that if we put CO2 and H2O in a Joules-Thomson throttling process that they'd form CH2O + O2 before polymerizing C6H12O6? I
No, I am saying that you would get CO2 and H2O
No reaction would take place.
I have considered that since the photosynthesis process is not known.
It is.
In fact two slightly different versions are known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Overview
Since you are not interested in science, why are you posting here?
I refer to a Joules-Thomson field or throttling process is simply because there is no research involving various types of molecules.
There are hundreds of years of research.
Why do you post nonsense?
-
The photosynthesis process isn't known. My experiment works and it will demonstrate that. After all, your
point is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 doesn't happen while that would allow for what plants and trees do.
Why not just like science? I have looked at the structure of plants based on the molecular/atomical function.
Plants are basically where the atomic realm goes from matter to life. This also includes phytoplankton which are harmed by an excess of UV radiation. Another reason why I like the ozone layer. It supports the food chain.
And what you can consider is if I am right. I'll have taken the work of the IPCC and many other scientists to create and pursue a hypothesis based on work their work suggested. Science isn't based on faith so I can accept work that has been done and what it suggests.
Just an FYI everyone, some "fun" time for me. Einstein's work was ridiculed and discarded. That is until someone who was famous for their failed research published Einstein's paper. While this is fact you guys will not know that Max Planck failed. And when his experiment was a failure he calculated his constant.
And you'll say this never happened when his failed experiment happened before a generator produced electricity. And now you'll say he worked by the light bulb Thomas Edison invented when he actually burned the midnight oil in his lamp.
And while you guys don't know that, I can understand that you never read the book.
-
The photosynthesis process isn't known.
You may not know it, but it seems that just makes it part of a long list.
-
And what you can consider is if I am right.
You aren't.
-
You can't win. My work is not based on organic chemistry. And I can't be nice about this. It is about who wins while I'm pursuing an experiment. We can agree I'll pursue my experiment while you say I am wrong. And everybody agrees with you. And now you are right.
-
I will need to quit posting online. I believe in the IPCC. And if I say the IPCC said that natural climate
variation allowed for the warming that ended in the mid 1940's, I am wrong because the IPCC said that the Little Ice Age ended because of CO2.
Their graph that shows CO2 levels rising between 1945 and 1980 show that effect from 1980 - 2015. I accept what the IPCC has said because I am required to do so. I have to accept that research published citing their 2001 report on climate change does not show cooling between 1945 and 1980 when in fact global warming started in 1950.
As forum rules dictate, I have to accept and promote what the IPCC has promoted as actual science. And if what the IPCC has promoted disagrees with what it currently promotes, that is to be disregarded.
This sounds to much like when my Father lived in occupied Norway. Nice Germans wanted to ensure that Norwegians thought and talked the right way. And when Norwegians failed to talk and think the right way, well those nice Germans banned them. Unlike his friend, my Father avoided being banned. And now I am here.
-
And ocean temps apparently set records. https://www.yahoo.com/news/noaa-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-global-sea-levels-and-ocean-heat-hit-record-highs-in-2021-212944097.html
The thermohaline circulation has no effect like a wind chill effect. Kind of obvious, 830:1 density ratio. Just basic science. Still, Atmospheric warming is warming the ocean. Thermodynamics is obvious. Hot flows to cold. Why over 90% of excess heat is found in the ocean per the IPCC who I support.
I have to admit that's like the tropopause warming the troposphere which we know happens. -40 warms 110 f.
I've lived in Phoenix.
The tropopause is actually colder. But like the mesopause which is over -100, heat flows through it to warm the troposphere. I accept that. This allows for what Joseph Fourier said. The Earth is simply too far from the Sun for the Sun to heat it.
With what Fourier said, what in a planet's atmosphere allows it to warm itself? Tyndall and Svante Aarhenius based their work on his opinion.
And I am building a perpetual motion machine because someone wrote a book saying they did it.
-
As forum rules dictate, I have to accept and promote what the IPCC has promoted as actual science. And if what the IPCC has promoted disagrees with what it currently promotes, that is to be disregarded.
This sounds to much like when my Father lived in occupied Norway. Nice Germans wanted to ensure that Norwegians thought and talked the right way. And when Norwegians failed to talk and think the right way, well those nice Germans banned them. Unlike his friend, my Father avoided being banned. And now I am here.
Don’t misquote this forum or you will find yourself banned.
Most pseudoscientists use the childish argument you are using.
Lets be clear. No one is asking you to accept or promote anything, but you are being told not to invoke conspiracies. There are many reasons why large organisations might not seem consistent or ignore information. @alancalverd has quoted one elsewhere, that some factors might be too complex, or non-controllable and so ignored. It might also be incompetence, or even handedness - keeping multiple opinions.
Currently you are displaying a serious lack of understanding of science and so will be limited to posting only in the New Theories section of this forum until further notice.
-
And I am building a perpetual motion machine because someone wrote a book saying they did it.
Are you heading for Narnia later on? Somebody wrote a book about it...
Which bit of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
do you think is wrong?
-
I'm actually trying to "prove" Johann Bessler (1680 - 1743) was right. It will be like if my build works as my research suggests it will, then I'll be able to test my hypothesis in atmospheric chemistry. And that hypothesis is based on research that various scientists have published papers about. I am on https://www.academia.edu's mailing list.
As far as perpetual motion goes, it's actually leveraging mass into motion which is realized as torque. Bessler's Wheel uses a neat trick. When the wheel rotates, a line wraps around stationary disc. This increases the distance between the fulcrum and its weight. Technically speaking the only worked performed is rotating the wheel. And you'll disagree with that. w = m*d, right? For the line attached to the weight to perform work, its length needs to change between point A (fulcrum) and point B (weight).
And Newton (1687, First Law of Motion) did say that an external force can change a body's motion. In this instance, resistance is a force. It negates inertia.
-
I'm actually trying to "prove" Johann Bessler (1680 - 1743) was right
Well, if he thought you can build a perpetual motion machine, he was wrong.
Why are you struggling to accept this fact?
-
I'll be able to test my hypothesis in atmospheric chemistry.
If your hypothesis involves making formaldehyde from CO2 and water then it's probably wrong too.
-
The Bessler wheel works by converting the gravitational potential energy of the falling weights into kinetic energy, and then using that resulting kinetic energy to add gravitational potential energy to the other weights by raising them up a gravitational potential. So no new energy is being added to the system. If you could somehow create a Bessler wheel with zero losses due to friction, vibrations, etc., then you could, in theory, keep the wheel turning indefinitely. However, you couldn't extract energy from the wheel's motion without bringing it to a stop.
-
It's interesting. I've had an American stalk me for 15 years saying the same things. He said he was defending his credibility. When I could've had a family, Christian coworkers got me fired because if I went to church (I went to 2) and had a family then I would threaten their dominance at work.
Saying something can't work isn't a discussion. As one person said they have nothing to do and want me to post so they can say "it won't work". With the science experiment, if it works some scientists might say that ozone in the stratosphere does something similar. This is where I have my website and I can post my thoughts on my research there.
As for my Bessler build, I'll be ordering rope tomorrow. I'll have about 1 week to finish the build. Then I'll be ready to rig it. I'd like to enjoy the work that I am actively pursuing. If all goes well then as a disabled Veteran I'll be able to move away from the U.S. It's just I'll have more work that I'll want to pursue and I simply don't feel safe living in the U.S.
I'd think though that in a science forum saying that there is research that can be done to better understand research that has been done but hearing research shouldn't be pursued is a little disturbing as well. I know, it's me. When research suggests something, what was the purpose of doing the initial research? Just to have some information to base an opinion on?
@Bored chemist, astronomers say the Milky Way galaxy is in dark matter https://www.space.com/dark-matter-slows-milky-way-rotation. I have no opinion about what astronomers say. Then consider https://earthsky.org/human-world/may-29-1919-solar-eclipse-einstein-relativity/
And again, I have no opinion about what Einstein and astronomers say or have said. I already know I am wrong.
-
Saying something can't work isn't a discussion.
After it is proved that something can't work, continuing to say "if it works" is not a discussion, it's a delusion.
astronomers say the Milky Way galaxy is in dark matter
No.
They do not.
They may say that there is some dark matter in it but the bits we can see are normal matter.
-
@Bored chemist, and what are you doing? Apparently nothing. I just did research along these lines;
Whatever I post, I will be wrong. I had no opinion about what astronomers say and I was still wrong. I think
a psychologist would refer to that as an OCD complex. OCD means Obsessive Control Disorder. People
just have to repeat certain behaviors.
@All, one question I asked Dr. Harbison who is an astronomer, when light bent more than Newton's gravity allowed for when passing the Sun, did it also slow? Again, I have no opinion. I am not an astronomer so I would not know what light did other than bend when passing the Sun. That research has never been done. Does it matter? I don't know. Ask an astronomer. And who knows, what if an astronomer decided to pursue such an experiment? Would it be a waste of time? I think it would be.
p.s., what idiot would suggest that light's amount of bend when passing the Sun would be proportional to its slowing? That might be like saying a person read about and considered both Newton's and Einstein's work on gravity and asked if planets might be influenced similarly and if there are any values that might suggest such a relationship. There isn't so no need to worry about it, righto mates?
-
Whatever I post, I will be wrong.
Yes, that is correct.
While you keep saying
"It will be like if my build works
you will continue to be wrong.
I had no opinion about what astronomers say and I was still wrong.
It wasn't an issue of your opinion.
You just mis-stated what they actually say.
You said "astronomers say the Milky Way galaxy is in dark matter"
And astronomers do not say that, do they?
I think
a psychologist would refer to that as an OCD complex. OCD means Obsessive Control Disorder. People
just have to repeat certain behaviors.
You keep repeating the same behaviour.
You repeatedly ignore reality.
You might want to talk to a professional about that.
-
You disagree with what astronomers have said?
The researchers found evidence of such an outward cosmic migration when they investigated the chemical makeup of the stars. The Hercules Stream stars are rich in heavier elements, suggesting that these stars formed closer to the galactic center, where stars are about 10 times richer in metals compared to those in the galactic suburbs.
From these observations, the researchers concluded that the galactic bar had indeed slowed by at least 24%. Raising the question — what has the power to put the brakes on an entire pivoting galaxy?
"The counterweight slowing this spin must be dark matter," Schoenrich said in the statement. "Until now, we have only been able to infer dark matter by mapping the gravitational potential of galaxies and subtracting the contribution from visible matter."
https://www.space.com/dark-matter-slows-milky-way-rotation
And please note that astronomers said;
The Hercules Stream stars are rich in heavier elements, suggesting that these stars formed closer to the galactic center, where stars are about 10 times richer in metals compared to those in the galactic suburbs.
I simply have no opinion of my own because I know I am wrong. After all, the laws of physics are different for our solar system than they are for our galaxy. There is nothing about our solar system that suggests a relationship with our galaxy. It's just not there.
-
I think
a psychologist would refer to that as an OCD complex. OCD means Obsessive Control Disorder.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, actually. I would know because I was diagnosed with it (although it doesn't affect my forum posting behaviors).
when light bent more than Newton's gravity allowed for when passing the Sun, did it also slow?
No slowing, but there is a delay associated with the distortion of space caused by the Sun's gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay
-
You disagree with what astronomers have said?
No
I disagree that they said "he Milky Way galaxy is in dark matter" because that really doesn't make much sense.
There will be some dark matter in the milky way.
-
Einstein's work was ridiculed and discarded
This seems to be a common theme with people posting crackpot theories. Whilst this may have happened to Einstain, it does not follow that somebody posting an outlandish idea with not enough understanding of science to accept why there idea is wrong has a valid theory.
I would also observe that lapsing into whining self pity does not validate your ideas.
-
@ Kryptid, it might be a matter of perspective. What if dark matter is what's responsible for gravity? Basically it transmits the effect that a body has on the space it occupies? You know, gravity exists because dark matter is transferring force?
Then would it be an odd thought to say that light slowed because space is denser closer to the Sun? And that gravity reflects the distortion/warp of space? And remember, light bent twice as much as what Newton's gravity predicted. How would you define the space and time that light is said to have interacted with?
And this research paper states that it wasn't a force that Einstein said attracted light towards the Sun but the fabric of space time itself.
Einstein [1] theorized in 1916 that a test mass travels towards a mass not because it is attracted by a force that acts across a distance between masses, but because the test mass travels through space and time that is warped by mass and energy. In this paper, the Interaction of a light Photon with a space-time fabric that has been deformed by a non-rotating Earth-like mass is described. The derivation is only for a slightly curved space-time fabric.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97163
And that is why I say dark matter. That in my opinion is the "space-time fabric" is what astronomers refer to as dark matter. And when someone asked me about if what I realized about 3 planets having a relationship to their atmospheric pressures, this could help to demonstrate how a planet's density and it's magnetic field have a common underlying behavior influencing them.
-
What if dark matter is what's responsible for gravity?
Then we wouldn't observe gravitational effects on normal matter .
But we do.
So Cavendish showed the the idea is wrong, about 200 years before anyone even considered dark matter.
-
hen someone asked me about if what I realized about 3 planets having a relationship to their atmospheric pressures, t
Your idea fell apart when we asked about any 4th planet.
Things got even worse when we pointed out that the density (and thus pressure) of the Earth's atmosphere has change over the course of history.
But you ignored this.
As I said, have you considered getting professional advice regarding your propensity to ignore reality?
I really think you should.
-
@Bored chemist, you should consider Einstein's work. He was a physicist. Astronomers verified his work. And today astronomers say dark matter. Have you ever considered that astronomers accepted what that research suggested?
I have shown where both physicists and astronomers are publishing work which might have that common source.
I'd say in many ways my opinion doesn't matter but with the research that I am pursuing, accepting that there is a field that is distorted by gravity/celestial body would help to support my hypothesis, ie., my working theory.
-
my working theory.
Your theory should also be able to explain at least all of this:
- Hawking Radiation
- Quantum entanglement
- Quantum superposition
- Quantum Vacuum and Vacuum Energy
- Quantum chromodynamics
- Quark
- Gluon
- Neutrino
- Antimatter
- CPT symmetry
- Supersymmetry
- Schrödinger's paradox
- Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
- Time dilation
- Dark Energy
- Gravity
- Tunnel effect
- Electromagnetic wave
- Weak interaction
- Electron
...
...
...
-
@Kartazion, quantum entanglement would be a start. That might be the most basic relationship. This is because the energy levels when quantum entanglement is observed is quite minimal. When 2 seemingly unrelated particles interact with each other below the quantum level is simply because that is how dark matter is inferred/quantified.
If you consider the crystals used for attempts at quantum computing and how microwaves "flip" those crystals (reverse polarity), quantum entanglement occurs at a much smaller energy level.
-
This is the simple explanation; https://pa.as.uky.edu/uk-physics-team-contributes-fermilab%E2%80%99s-muon-g-2-experiment-reveals-evidence-new-physics
They simply did not account for dark matter. Major face palm here. How do you make that mistake? You have to be born stupid or live in Kentucky like I do. And I want to move out of the U.S. to get away from this kind of stupid. I simply can't explain how they missed the obvious.
-
This is the simple explanation; https://pa.as.uky.edu/uk-physics-team-contributes-fermilab%E2%80%99s-muon-g-2-experiment-reveals-evidence-new-physics
They simply did not account for dark matter. Major face palm here. How do you make that mistake? You have to be born stupid or live in Kentucky like I do. And I want to move out of the U.S. to get away from this kind of stupid. I simply can't explain how they missed the obvious.
-
@Kartazion, quantum entanglement would be a start. That might be the most basic relationship. This is because the energy levels when quantum entanglement is observed is quite minimal. When 2 seemingly unrelated particles interact with each other below the quantum level is simply because that is how dark matter is inferred/quantified.
If you consider the crystals used for attempts at quantum computing and how microwaves "flip" those crystals (reverse polarity), quantum entanglement occurs at a much smaller energy level.
Quantum entanglement is the most complicated thing to understand that exists in quantum mechanics and works very well in the excited states of an atom. Its critical interpretation develops rather at the level of the explanation of Bell's inequalities which points out the complexity of this phenomenon.
-
Is this what you're referring to?
Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely-related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories. The "local" in this case refers to the principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light. "Hidden variables" are hypothetical properties possessed by quantum particles, properties that are undetectable but still affect the outcome of experiments. In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."[1]
I think the statement defeats itself. Light slowing when it moves past the Sun is a local effect. At the moment that is what we are discussing. Is gravity an effect or is it the cause of the effect that slows light.
-
@Bored chemist, you should consider Einstein's work. He was a physicist. Astronomers verified his work. And today astronomers say dark matter. Have you ever considered that astronomers accepted what that research suggested?
I have shown where both physicists and astronomers are publishing work which might have that common source.
I'd say in many ways my opinion doesn't matter but with the research that I am pursuing, accepting that there is a field that is distorted by gravity/celestial body would help to support my hypothesis, ie., my working theory.
Just try reading what you said.
Not what you think you said, but the actual words you typed.
astronomers say the Milky Way galaxy is in dark matter
-
Then would it be an odd thought to say that light slowed because space is denser closer to the Sun?
What would it mean for space to be "denser"?
-
gravity phonons would become denser in the space-time fabric it creates. When they become denser they would also become smaller. This means that the number of gravity phonons for 1mm^3 of space would increase.
-
gravity phonons
What?
-
I have previously posted this.
Einstein [1] theorized in 1916 that a test mass travels towards a mass not because it is attracted by a force that acts across a distance between masses, but because the test mass travels through space and time that is warped by mass and energy. In this paper, the Interaction of a light Photon with a space-time fabric that has been deformed by a non-rotating Earth-like mass is described. The derivation is only for a slightly curved space-time fabric.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97163
It's just as easy to say gravitons are particles. Scientists have speculated that neutrinos might be what dark matter is composed of. It's possible that dark matter particles are much smaller than a neutrino. And if so then it is possible that some energy such as photons and possibly neutrinos move between gravitons (gravity phonons).
What would need to be considered is photons. If a wavelength that is 500nm (visible light), it would be composed of many photons.
And since matter cannot occupy occupied space (am stating the obvious here), how photons interact with dark matter (gravitons, gravity phonons) at the gravitational level, how "gravity" would allow for the wavelength of energy to remain cohesive while allowing for the inverse square law to show that over time and distance it has a specific rate of expansion.
Basically as the space around the Sun decreases in density, the light it emits will occupy the space in that path. A question I could ask is if the Sun was not in a field of dark matter like the Milky Way galaxy, would light emitted from the Sun expand to occupy the space around the Sun? Or would its amplitude remain unchanged while it follows its path?
-
I have previously posted this.
Einstein [1] theorized in 1916 that a test mass travels towards a mass not because it is attracted by a force that acts across a distance between masses, but because the test mass travels through space and time that is warped by mass and energy. In this paper, the Interaction of a light Photon with a space-time fabric that has been deformed by a non-rotating Earth-like mass is described. The derivation is only for a slightly curved space-time fabric.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97163
It's just as easy to say gravitons are particles. Scientists have speculated that neutrinos might be what dark matter is composed of. It's possible that dark matter particles are much smaller than a neutrino. And if so then it is possible that some energy such as photons and possibly neutrinos move between gravitons (gravity phonons).
What would need to be considered is photons. If a wavelength that is 500nm (visible light), it would be composed of many photons.
And since matter cannot occupy occupied space (am stating the obvious here), how photons interact with dark matter (gravitons, gravity phonons) at the gravitational level, how "gravity" would allow for the wavelength of energy to remain cohesive while allowing for the inverse square law to show that over time and distance it has a specific rate of expansion.
Basically as the space around the Sun decreases in density, the light it emits will occupy the space in that path. A question I could ask is if the Sun was not in a field of dark matter like the Milky Way galaxy, would light emitted from the Sun expand to occupy the space around the Sun? Or would its amplitude remain unchanged while it follows its path?
You are almost there. Now do a search for the oscillator and the universe and dark matter in your search engine. You will see.
gravity phonons
What?
It's about Negative Gravity.
-
The phonons are oscillator, and the oscillator explains everything about quantum mechanics through the particle, because the universe is an oscillator.
-
Phonons do not generate the current. They provide a field for wave energy to interact with. Gravity has yet to be explained. And then we are discussing why light moved closer to the Sun than what the theory of gravity allowed for.
-
Phonons do not generate the current. They provide a field for wave energy to interact with. Gravity has yet to be explained.
In-plane optical phonon modes of current-carrying graphene https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00636
-
Those phonons were a carrier and did not generate the current. And the context that I am discussing is in a gravitational field. Einstein said that light was interacting with something. What is possible is that light moved towards the Sun because gravity phonons move in that direction. And light simply moved with the flow of gravity phonons.
With the experiment that I am pursuing, if it works then since it does not use the photolytic or halogen process it might show if the magnetosphere influences the Earth's atmosphere. And if it does, then will that be because the magnetosphere influences the Earth's gravitational field? Basically an astronomical example of non-local behavior or quantum entanglement?
If my work shows what I think it will, I'll need a working theory/hypothesis to support my work. Otherwise why am I spending time on an idea that has no scientific basis?
-
"Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
Do you have anything peer reviewed to support "gravity phonons"?
-
@Bored chemist, from Cornell University;
The graviton is a hypothetical particle which is thought to be responsible for carrying the force of gravity, in analogy to the photon, which is responsible for communicating all electromagnetic forces.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/137-general-physics/particles-and-quantum-physics/813-what-is-a-graviton-intermediate
Is Cornell University a credible source of information? And as I mentioned, with the experiment that I am pursuing, neither the photolytic or halogen process will influence the experiment. What will be left would be a new process if my experiment is successful
To say that the absorption and emission spectrums would become more prominent in a field with less electromagnetic radiation would not be unexpected. Then if that same experiment shows that the number of interactions allows for new molecules/compounds to occur dependent on the "proximity" to the magnetosphere, Coulomb's law would not apply. Then something else would be influencing the Earth's atmosphere.
And it is known that the height of the troposphere changes from the equator to the poles. And for the 3 climatic zones that the Earth has, those align themselves with the Van Allen radiation belts. An example is that where the tropics are near the equator, so is the inner radiation belt. I don't think that's a coincidence. And that is where the height of the troposphere is also at its highest elevation. And yet this is also where the Earth's rotation would distort the space around it (its gravitational field) the most. I had to keep gravity in the discussion.
It's nothing personal bored chemist but this is a different type of chemistry than what organic chemistry allows for.
@All, just to be clear on this, if the Van Allen radiation belts are raising the ceiling height of the troposphere (the greenhouse we live in) the Earth's spin might actually be trying to pull it closer
because of how its rotation distorts the space around it.
This gets into Einstein saying the Sun warps the space around it.
-
Those phonons were a carrier and did not generate the current.
My previous link is very explicit in view of an evolution of modern interpretation. This is what the phonovoltaic base is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonovoltaic
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonovoltaic#/media/File:Phonovoltaic_Cell_and_Energy_Diagram.png)
-
That is a different application than moving light from a distant star closer to the Sun. I'll say that as gravitons move towards the Sun generating its gravitational field, it changed the path the light was following. What you're discussing might have more to do with the magnetic field which is something different.
You could consider if the phonovoltaic effect creates or helps to create the Earth's magnetic field. If so, then do you think at the place of the most excitement/distortion that an inner radiation belt might be observed?
-
@Bored chemist, from Cornell University;
The graviton is a hypothetical particle which is thought to be responsible for carrying the force of gravity, in analogy to the photon, which is responsible for communicating all electromagnetic forces.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/137-general-physics/particles-and-quantum-physics/813-what-is-a-graviton-intermediate
Is Cornell University a credible source of information? And as I mentioned, with the experiment that I am pursuing, neither the photolytic or halogen process will influence the experiment. What will be left would be a new process if my experiment is successful
Why did you post that dross?
I know what gravitons are.
I'm asking about the thing which seems to be bollocks you made up.
Do you have anything peer reviewed to support "gravity phonons"?
I presume the answer is "no".
-
@Bored chemist, if my research proves out and I say that I believe that gravitons create gravity and have a flow through matter, people might find that's possible. And if I say this is what Einstein's 1916 paper was about and that when gravitons moved towards the Sun that it changed the path that light from a distant star was following, they might find that's possible. Something creates gravity. And with what Kartazion said about phonovoltaics, that might help to explain how the Earth's rotation generated its magnetic field and created radiation belts around the planet.
Basically phonons/gravitons would serve 2 purposes simultaneously. And if those 2 things are true, then they might also apply to the strong and weak nuclear force associated with an element. If that is true then all 4 forces would be shown to have a common cause. No research paper has yet to be written that associates those 4 forces with a common cause.
I read Einstein's biography when I was 13 or 14 and it kind of got into this and what propagates the motion of light. Einstein's father and uncle were into electrical engineering and dynos (generators). That might be what got Einstein interested in physics. And I've always accepted that space wasn't empty. Keppler said universal electricities while Einstein said æther. And isn't quantum entanglement when 2 particles interact? That's what gravity describes as well. Somehow 2 particles interact.
And yet all of this would come from thinking that the Sun's gravitational field (gravitons) are flowing towards it while light from a distant star is passing the Sun.
-
You didn't answer the question.
Why did you post mainstream stuff about gravitons when I asked you about your made up idea of "gravity phonons".
Did you hope I wouldn't notice?
We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.
-
@All, just to be clear on this, if the Van Allen radiation belts are raising the ceiling height of the troposphere (the greenhouse we live in) the Earth's spin might actually be trying to pull it closer
because of how its rotation distorts the space around it.
Can you provide evidence that this is actually happening?
-
@The Spoon, with the experiment that I am pursuing http://climate-cycling.com/?page_id=33, if that is successful then that would be next. If you consider the altitude of the troposphere/tropopause boundary and both the tropical and polar jet streams, I think it would be worth trying to find out.
@Kartazion, with what you're discussing, polarity comes to mind as well as orientation. in a gravitational field, phonovoltaic/graviton particles might have something in common with light such as having 2 different properties. Light is both electromagnetic and electric.
All I can say is that for what we are discussing and its application, if dark matter has 2 different properties then if they switch off and on, would they be symmetrical?
-
@Bored chemist,
We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.
Someone asked me about neutrinos. Have you ever considered that when they come from the Sun's core
that it's the flow of dark matter having to eject matter? I mean with gravity, denser elements and matter forms.
And when there is a flow of dark matter into the Sun, wouldn't you expect it to have an emission as well?
As for luminiferous itself, what if there are counter flows to dark matter/gravitons? Since they'd happen basically
at 0º kelvin, how would you observe them? If not for that then when a gravitational field becomes denser, where does the excess energy go? That suggests that even a gravitational field has an opposing effect within itself. Thermodynamics. Friction creates heat and an opposing flow can reduce friction/heat and prevent luminiferous type behavior.
-
You didn't answer the question.
Why did you post mainstream stuff about gravitons when I asked you about your made up idea of "gravity phonons".
Did you hope I wouldn't notice?
We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.
-
@Bored scientist, I have research that I am pursuing. There is no "we" involved. You say scientists like yourself proved something. I will quit posting in this forum because pursuing research that has not been done should not be done.
When you repeat a post demanding that I answer to you, what is your real name? Do you have one? I have no need for your constantly trolling me. As a chemist are you familiar with astronomy and Einstein's work? You say scientists like yourself proved Einstein wrong. A post twice made. That is what luminiferous aether is about.
And yet astronomers did observe that light bent more than what Newton's gravity allowed for. But you scientists have proven that wrong. I am in the wrong forum. If I say the IPCC changed its stance on climate change when their reports support that, that is a conspiracy theory. Saying Einstein was wrong is not. Science has become a political tool.
I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy. A stance
that scientists have taken. I plan on enjoying what I am working on and pursuing. And I know what ever I do I will be wrong. It's like I wasn't born a "real" American. I'm just not that good.
I did get the rope today that I need to hang myself with. It's an American saying. Of course I want to move to Australia and I call the rope "rigging" for my perpetual machine build. The prototype shows it can work and like the experiments I want to pursue, sensors monitoring atmospheric gasses will say if things have changed. And then if those gasses occurring are influence by the altitude of the tropopause, not for me to say.
And as for the Unified Field Theory, I'll just mention that and this thread and they'll see how that thought was originated.
-
All I can say is that for what we are discussing and its application, if dark matter has 2 different properties then if they switch off and on, would they be symmetrical?
Precisely asymmetrical.
I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy.
Perpetual motion is between potential energy and kinetic energy, namely the gravitational oscillator. Look what is the gravitational oscillator on bing or google.
-
When you repeat a post demanding that I answer to you, what is your real name? Do you have one? I have no need for your constantly trolling me. As a chemist are you familiar with astronomy and Einstein's work? You say scientists like yourself proved Einstein wrong. A post twice made. That is what luminiferous aether is about.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
It's like I wasn't born a "real" American. I'm just not that good.
Being wrong about scientific principles has nothing to do with being an American.
-
Perpetual motion is between potential energy and kinetic energy, namely the gravitational oscillator.
Perpetual motion machines are garbage as is your attempt to hijack this thread.
-
Perpetual motion machines are garbage as is you attempt to hijack this thread.
Leave me the bunch.
@JLindgaard do not listen to him. The perpetual motion what am I talking about is that of the Hole Through the Earth Example - GSU. Here is the link of the most serious source http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
-
I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy.
Yep. Don't be intimidated. You're on the right track, because you've seen it as soon as we talk about serious things, we disturbs @Origin.
-
@Kartazion , I'll blame this on alcohol because I went and bought some. The Earth's radiation belts are hotter than its surface. The Sun's corona is hotter than its surface. The Earth's radiation belts are supplied energy from the Sun's corona.
Where is the energy for the Sun's corona and it's own growth coming from? Would it be a "seriously radical" concept if where dark matter flowing into the Sun converges to make the solar wind? I mean how can the Sun draw gravity into itself without generating a massive amount of heat?
I used to think about this when I was younger. The Sun can't possibly grow to one day have a radius that will extend to the present day orbit of the Earth. And yet the solar wind is emitting the energy it needs to become more massive.
If people ever considered the engineering behind perpetual motion attempts, it never demonstrated conservation of energy. What people do not understand is that scientists say that perpetual motion is impossible because gravity has no energy. If things work out for me I'll become famous for that reason, someone said gravity doesn't have energy.
Perpetual motion is better understood with Newton's Laws of Motion and leverage. Understanding why the Sun's corona is so hot and the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow while there is no source of energy for all of that, science doesn't explain that. I mean compression doesn't create heat and energy, right?
-
@Origin, it is my thread as well as climate change and ice ages. In my first I said I am building a perpetual motion machine. Being from Dayton, Ohio which is the home of the Wright Brothers, I am aware of history. What got me interested in Bessler's Wheel was a description I associated with the construction of planes.
I used to work at Boeing and know how they used empty space to make a better plane. I am not an AMerican because my Father was from Norway. I have 2 service connected disabilities because "I'm not one of you guys". My accent gave me away.
And to say that light moved closer to the Sun because gravity is an energy that has a flow, that is a very basic thought.
When matter does not move that much and they say that what was observed was light interacting equally with space-time, what keeps them from saying dark matter? Next I won't be allowed to say Jackie Robinson.
Things might be that simple.
-
@Kartazion, when you posted about photovoltaic behavior, if gravitons have a dual nature, that would be its other nature. And looking back in the thread, you are the one who created a list. The Sun growing while emanating a solar wind might be dark matter.
With the research that I'm pursuing, some things on your list might be something I haven't considered. It would be best for me to consider the research I am pursuing.
With quantum entanglement and quantum cubits, do microwaves interact with the qubits causing them to flip (reverse polarity) or do microwaves physically interact with qubits? I think you have an opinion of this and there is no physical interaction. Your posts suggests you understand what this implies.
That is the best example of quantum entanglement I could think of.
-
Basic question. If the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow, can someone say where that energy is coming from? Can the Sun absorb more energy than its corona is emitting? If so, where is that energy coming from?
As for perpetual motion, it will allow me to try my experiment to see if molecules in the absence of heat form new molecules because they are trying to reach an equilibrium with their environment according to the laws of thermodynamics.
What you guys can consider is the Sun and its corona/solar wind and what gravity allows for. And hey, I have lime so I bought myself some corona. Not sure what beer and the Sun have in common but I'll drink to it.
p.s., when I used quantum computers as an example of quantum entanglement, Kartazion I think knew what I was talking about. Did microwaves physically interact with salt ions and reverse their polarity or was the field they are in changed by the field of the microwave passing it?
Quantum computing happens at very cold temperatures and seems to rely on quantum entanglement because a physical interaction requires more energy and would generate more heat. With the list Kartazion created, they are apparently aware of what's happening in science today. And maybe I helped them to understand things a little better?
-
Would it be a "seriously radical" concept if where dark matter flowing into the Sun converges to make the solar wind?
Probably, given that dark matter is so incredibly non-reactive with matter that even neutrinos are easier to detect than it is.
I mean how can the Sun draw gravity into itself without generating a massive amount of heat?
I don't think the Sun draws gravity into itself. It has a gravitational field, but that doesn't sound like the same thing to me.
The Sun can't possibly grow to one day have a radius that will extend to the present day orbit of the Earth.
Why do you not think so? The expansion of the Sun as a red giant would make the Sun less dense, not more massive.
And yet the solar wind is emitting the energy it needs to become more massive.
The Sun isn't going to become more massive by becoming a red giant.
What people do not understand is that scientists say that perpetual motion is impossible because gravity has no energy.
No, they say it's impossible because of Noether's theorem.
and the Sun will grow while there is no source of energy for all of that
The source of energy for the Sun's growth into the red giant stage will come from fusing helium, which it is not currently using.
When matter does not move that much and they say that what was observed was light interacting equally with space-time, what keeps them from saying dark matter?
Dark matter is specifically invoked to explain the anomalous rotation curve of the galaxy, not gravitational lensing. Dark matter isn't necessary to explain gravitational lensing.
If the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow, can someone say where that energy is coming from?
I think all of currently proposed explanations say that the energy comes from inside the Sun. Something that needs to be remembered is that one thing being hotter than another doesn't necessarily mean that the hotter thing contains more energy. The corona and solar wind have an exceedingly low density (10-16 grams per cubic centimeter for the corona and less for the solar wind). Even the Earth's atmosphere is much more dense than that. It takes less energy to heat up a low density gas than a high density gas of the same composition (assuming equal volumes of each). So I don't think the corona and solar wind contain an anomalous amount of energy compared to the Sun itself. What is currently not well understood is the exact heating mechanism.
-
And for the Sun to become a red giant, one glorious day from now it will become a neutron star because it will collapse into itself. Science not accepting that a brown dwarf is gaining mass. I think everyone knows that a brown dwarf can't become a Betelgeuse first without gaining mass. How do we ignore the obvious?
And I did say that you have an understanding of science. This can help other people to understand that?
-
And for the Sun to become a red giant, one glorious day from now it will become a neutron star because it will collapse into itself.
White dwarf, actually. The Sun isn't heavy enough to become a neutron star.
Science not accepting that a brown dwarf is gaining mass. I think everyone knows that a brown dwarf can't become a Betelgeuse first without gaining mass.
Science doesn't claim that brown dwarfs turn into red giants. They don't.
-
Our brown dwarf Sun can't gain mass. It's simply too small.
I've been drinking and it was difficult for me to say that. I just had
another drink of corona.
Heavier elements originate closer to the center of the galaxy. Consider
this a win because I've been drinking, okay? I simply can't make sense
of this.
-
Our brown dwarf Sun
The Sun isn't a brown dwarf.
-
An internet search does not identify it. It's brown dwarf.
"Real" American music;
-
An internet search does not identify it. It's brown dwarf.
The Sun is a yellow dwarf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-type_main-sequence_star
Consider
this a win because I've been drinking, okay? I simply can't make sense
of this.
I think i would suggest waiting until you sober up before posting again.
-
I acknowledge I know nothing. I accept that. If I were to know something, someone who thinks and talks the right way will teach me. Nazis tried to teach this to my Father and failed. I accept what I am taught. I know nothing.
-
And my experiment in atmospheric chemistry has been proven wrong by Kryptid .
His only words that matter, I am wrong as is friend Bored chemist said. And if I am
right, they'll say something about me. And that will make them right.
@krypwho, my experiment has nothing to do with anything other than atmospheric chemistry.
-
@Kryp, that thing that warms the Earth will never gain mass. Science has said that and I accept science.
I think anymore if your job doesn't pay the bills..............and that is it. I've read the Bible and will accept
what it says. Just so funny anything I say will apply to science and the church. I just need to have faith.
@Kryp,, I can prove brown is a longer wavelength than black. I have proof.
What is accepted is what matters. Scientists have gotten Max Planck's work in black body radiation wrong. The thing is, they don't seem to now about his work. Diesel got the first power plnt runnning about 1993. Right?
-
@Kryp, that thing that warms the Earth will never gain mass. Science has said that and I accept science.
I never said otherwise.
@Kryp,, I can prove brown is a longer wavelength than black. I have proof.
I don't know what relevance this has to anything we've already said (brown and black don't have wavelengths anyway). If posting drunk is going to make you say things like this, then please stop while you're ahead. This is verging on spam.
-
@Kryp,, I can prove brown is a longer wavelength than black. I have proof.
What is accepted is what matters. Scientists have gotten Max Planck's work in black body radiation wrong. The thing is, they don't seem to know about his work. Diesel got the first power plnt runnning about 1993. Right?
Brown is 600 nm while yellow is 580 nm. I am wrong because of 20 nm? Seriously? I will forever remember this. What is the difference in the density of the star? 20nm is the rule of law. Can't say it I'll never care for it. Only a person who drank nothing knows the difference of a wavelength and 20 nm.
Science does not forgive. Go to church if you want forgiveness. 20 nm and I'm wrong?
Science sucks. I'll look for the research paper.
-
Brown is 600 nm
The depends on how you define brown. That's true if you're defining it as dim orange. Back in my days in art class, it was defined as a mix of blue, red and yellow. As such, it wouldn't have a single wavelength, but several wavelengths of light at once.
Black doesn't have a wavelength, though. Black is the absence/absorption of light.
Science sucks.
Then this isn't the website for you.
-
You are right and I am wrong. And if my experiment works, I am wrong.
What I read about science is wrong. It will be embarrassing if I say I was taught brown dwarf
and can do science you can't when you are right. And yet you will know the "right" science.
After I try my experiment I will quit science. And if you can't do better, at least you'll know
the "right" science.
And you just said 20 nm is what matters to you. It is what defines what you know.
Good Bye.
-
Watch the video closely. Brown is outside of black. The experiment which Max Planck originated is wrong.
Black is a color just as brown is. This isn't proof. Heat metal yourself. Black is a color and is not absorbing.
Try Max Planck's experiment yourself. He used a furnace and I knew what a cutting torch would do. I saw
this when working construction finishing cement. Why no one saw Max Planck's experiment in construction
safety I'll never know.
I also poured and finished cement that day. I doubt you guys could do that. You might get your hands dirty. Just an FYI, the brown outside of the black ring represents a yelow sun.
Safety is cutting steel from the backside of an I-beam. Limits the exposure to people watching.
-
I'd like to apologize for drinking. Yellow goes to brown and then black. Heating steel shows this. That is wrong. What science says is right. I apologize for thinking I learned something on a construction site.
-
When you repeat a post demanding that I answer to you, what is your real name?
When I do that my real name is Ethelred.
Obviously, when I don't do that my real name is something else.
There is no "we" involved.
We are scientists.
I will quit posting in this forum because pursuing research that has not been done should not be done.
You didn't read through before you posted it, did you?
I have no need for your constantly trolling me.
You apparently have need of someone reminding you that, if you don't answer legitimate questions, you are here to preach rather than to discuss.
The rules don't allow that.
As a chemist are you familiar with astronomy and Einstein's work?
Yes, thanks for asking.
But it's beside the point.
I'm asking you if you have any evidence to support your claims.
I don't need to understand astronomy to do that.
You say scientists like yourself proved Einstein wrong. A post twice made. That is what luminiferous aether is about.
I pointed out the the luminiferous aether was searched for, but never found in circumstances where it should have been.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
And yet astronomers did observe that light bent more than what Newton's gravity allowed for.
Where?
Not that it's relevant to me asking you for evidence.
I do have my perpetual motion machine to build.
You can't.
This has also been proved.
If it works then it proves gravity has energy.
It won't, so it won't.
You didn't answer the question.
Why did you post mainstream stuff about gravitons when I asked you about your made up idea of "gravity phonons".
Did you hope I wouldn't notice?
We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.
-
I also poured and finished cement that day. I doubt you guys could do that. You might get your hands dirty.
You know nothing about me. I have done my fair share of mixing, pouring and finishing cement.
Your comments don’t make you appear intelligent.
-
I'd like to apologize for drinking.
Drinking isn't the problem.
Thinking you know more than everyone else while ignoring evidence is the problem and it seems that you do that without the need to drink.
-
I am not going to post in here any more. With what bored chemist posts to me, he is saying the same things that a guy who has stalked me for over 15 years has said. And if my Bessler's Wheel build works, I will need to move to another country to get away from abusive people like bored chemist and other Americans like this guy;
https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4656
And bored chemist, as you said, you are watching me and I better be aware of that and that you'll come after me. What a stalker says.
-
I am not going to post in here any more. With what bored chemist posts to me, he is saying the same things that a guy who has stalked me for over 15 years has said. And if my Bessler's Wheel build works, I will need to move to another country to get away from abusive people like bored chemist and other Americans like this guy;
https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4656
And bored chemist, as you said, you are watching me and I better be aware of that and that you'll come after me. What a stalker says.
Paranoia and self pity much?
-
And bored chemist, as you said, you are watching me and I better be aware of that and that you'll come after me.
I didn't say that.
You imagined it.
I suggest you seek professional help rather than an air ticket and a work visa.
-
I am not going to post in here any more. With what bored chemist posts to me, he is saying the same things that a guy who has stalked me for over 15 years has said. And if my Bessler's Wheel build works, I will need to move to another country to get away from abusive people like bored chemist and other Americans like this guy;
https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4656
And bored chemist, as you said, you are watching me and I better be aware of that and that you'll come after me. What a stalker says.
I am tiring of this whinging. We appear to have a troll who also haunts other forums.
I’m hearing more moaning than I am scientific explanation, so time for it to stop.