1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to wirelessly transmit electricity?

« on: 01/05/2016 15:15:40 »

All the optical fibres I have seen have been wireless.
They are usually made of glass or plastic.
The wiki page I posted included hair and even water jets as examples.
Meanwhile, here's what wire means.
wire
wʌɪə/Submit
noun
1.
metal drawn out into the form of a thin flexible thread or rod.
"a coil of copper wire"
2.
an electronic listening device that can be concealed on a person.
"an undercover police informer who was wearing a wire"


So, one is metal and the oterh isn't.
Did you think you had a point?

No, I KNOW I had a point:

wire·less
ˈwī(ə)rləs/
adjective
1.
using radio, microwaves, etc. (as opposed to wires or cables) to transmit signals.
"wireless broadband"

Now, do I need to post the definition of "cable" for you as well? You do know glass, plastic and hair aren't part of the electromagnetic spectrum, right?

2

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 01/05/2016 14:59:05 »

Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.

3

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 01/05/2016 14:33:33 »

You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.

I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.

I don't care. You spent weeks trolling me, insulting me and posting bad science. I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because, unlike me, you are too cowardly and deceitful to use your real identity when you're flaming people.

According to alancalverd, I was kicked out for "unparliamentary behavior." That's a joke.

Hmm, is that parliamentary? NO. Even our do-nothing US Congress isn't that out of control. People specifically don't watch C-SPAN because it's boring. A few years ago, congressman Joe Wilson shouted the single word "liar" out of turn, and he was skewered by the press and members of both parties because that was unprecedented. But if that's the criterion you want to use, you, jeffreyH, Tim the Plumber and alancalverd should all be kicked out too. None of you agree with each other, but you all think you're right. The cacophony is deafening. Sounds a lot like Parliament to me, LOL

4

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 28/04/2016 14:02:08 »

CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.

Explain how this is not unparliametary:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"

Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.

I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.

Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.

Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.

5

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 15/04/2016 14:09:51 »

Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?

You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to wirelessly transmit electricity?

« on: 15/04/2016 13:56:17 »

you might want to discuss that with the people who make optical fibres.

Try reading before you post. Here's what he said:

"The wireless transmission of energy is the basis of everything from ultralong wave radio to millimeter wave radar. The problem is that it is very ineffcient over long distances."

Now tell me, when was the last time you saw a wireless optical fibre?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to wirelessly transmit electricity?

« on: 14/04/2016 16:05:36 »

Yes it's possible, and it wasn't new technology when my dad was using it shortly after WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

Thanks for the post, that's pretty interesting. I think I remember hearing the term "crystal radio" before, but I sure didn't know that's where diodes came from. I actually used to have a galena specimen from Wyoming that I collected for a 9th grade Earth Science class.

http://geology.com/minerals/photos/galena-crystal-radio.jpg

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to wirelessly transmit electricity?

« on: 14/04/2016 15:50:17 »

Something to consider: When a photon is travelling across space at the speed of light, there's an electric component in there, but no wires.

http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3517140/slides/slide_29.jpg

9

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 14/04/2016 14:47:56 »

How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.

There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.

How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?

10

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 13/04/2016 13:58:27 »

Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?

Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.

I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?

You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.

You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.

11

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 12/04/2016 02:38:48 »

I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

False:

See the I.D.?

I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.

At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.

You're just a sock puppet.

12

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 11/04/2016 15:45:51 »

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."

I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

13

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 11/04/2016 15:39:37 »

If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Yes, I am not a bad writer:

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

Are YOU good at anything?

14

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 11/04/2016 14:36:54 »

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.

Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.

15

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 11/04/2016 14:26:20 »

Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "

That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.

16

General Science / Re: Is climate change causing more severe storms?

« on: 11/04/2016 14:03:28 »

For as long as you are being disrespectful I will call you out on it. I won't call you names. I will simply point out the defects in your character that make you so objectionable.

There's nothing respectful about interrupting a conversation about science to not talk about science, so as long as you keep wasting everyone's time doing that, I'm going to keep calling you names, more on.

You don't learn very quickly, do you?

17

General Science / Re: Is climate change causing more severe storms?

« on: 10/04/2016 17:06:29 »

So why do you think the climate models don't work?

I'd say it a combination of chaos and wrong assumptions. But do tell me what it reall is.

Do you even know the difference between a linear and a non-linear system? I'm going to guess no.

News flash: Climate is not random, and neither is weather. There's order in that randomness. Most systems in nature exhibit non-linear characteristics. However, non-linear equations are hard to solve, so mathematicians approximate them with linear equations.

Then you come along and start quoting those mathematicians without even knowing what they are talking about.

That's "wrong assumption" number one. Edify yourself:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_climatechange25.htm

18

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 10/04/2016 16:37:05 »

The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.

Well, I think you should talk to the people at CERN. You should tell them that you have a new entropy-free process for accelerating particles. Instead of wasting several cities worth of energy to accelerate particles to near the speed of light, you can merely drop an apple on them. That sounds way more efficient.

In fact, I'm going to set up an apparatus like that in my home. Why am I wasting time eating apples? An apple a day keeps the electricity bill away. Or maybe I should keep eating them too, because that's clearly how you power the endless stream of BS coming out of your face at 10^14 coulombs of horsepower.

What's the power of a city minus two gamma rays? Is it more the 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000? Feel free to answer using any unit of measurement you like.

LOL

19

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 10/04/2016 16:17:18 »

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.

Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.

Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.

20

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 10/04/2016 16:04:02 »

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.

YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.