[Bored chemist]

Δt=ΔS

ΔS=Δt

That implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.

Is that what you meant, or is this another case of you saying one thing but meaning something else?

You still don't know what variate means.

I have no values

p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yes

What did you think that meant?

[Bored chemist]

I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc˛

Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.

[guest39538]

Δt=ΔS

ΔS=Δt

That implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.

Is that what you meant, or is this another case of you saying one thing but meaning something else?

It does not imply that, that would imply Entropy equals plus time where I state entropy is time.

ΔS = Δt

Δt = ΔS

entropy is equal to time,  a change in entropy is a change in the frequency of time as seen in the Keating experiment.

Δf in a body is a change in time 

[guest39538]

I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc˛

Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.

They get sunlight , i.e nuclear power.

[Bored chemist]

where I state entropy is time.

It isn't.
For a start it has the wrong units.

They get sunlight , i.e nuclear power.

I know.
That's why I pointed out that the source isn't local.
Which is why it's not relevant to the discussion (and it wasn't 400 years ago either).

I still wonder what  you meant by this
"

p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yes

What question did you think I was going to ask?

[guest39538]

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,

(1 ≠ 1) = 0

1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.

=(1≠1)

[Bored chemist]

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,

(1 ≠ 1) = 0

1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.

That's not the sort of question I would ask.
My questions usually make some sort of sense, whereas "1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
" is another example of the gibberish you usually produce.

Mind you, I wonder if you plan to answer a question I did actually ask.

To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.

Did you really not know that?

[guest39538]

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,

(1 ≠ 1) = 0

1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.

That's not the sort of question I would ask.
My questions usually make some sort of sense, whereas "1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
" is another example of the gibberish you usually produce.

Mind you, I wonder if you plan to answer a question I did actually ask.

To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.

Did you really not know that?

I answered that ..

[guest39538]

=(1≠1)

=(1≠1)

[guest39538]

c/x=1.s

c/y=1.s

c/z=1.s

1.s = ( t ≠ t')

Δc=0
Δt=0
Δt'=Δ

(Δc=0) = (Δt ≠ Δt')

Relativistic integers in an  absolute space-time.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...

I would say yes and then it would return to normal, as everything settled back to its position.

If you roled earth up into a cone it would still orbit around the path it is now.

I believe the earthquakes shortened the length of days by a few fractions of q second, maybe a Tzar bomb would do that?

That is if none of the mass escaped into space

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,

Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...

No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.

We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight,  or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...

I'm guessing you watched that video from Ridddle too, huh? It's a load of bunk. Tsar Bomba could do nothing to significantly change Earth's orbit, regardless of how you partition the energy. Keep in mind that the asteroid that left the Chicxulub crater released about two million times more energy than Tsar Bomba yet even that didn't push Earth significantly.

Seems wierd that to me, perhaps a contender for dark 3nergy or dark matter.

Apparently the collision of the primeval earth at an angle with another planetoid did not alter its orbital plane either.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The global warming marketing sales pitch, changed from global warming to climate change over the past few years. I was not addressing the old sales pitch, I was addressing just the new and improved climate change sales pitch. This sales pitch has a problem, since El Nino events can be used to explain climate change, with El Nino having been doing this for centuries. It was recorded by the Inca indians. It is also interesting that advance cultures of the past often seem to find extreme geological places to settle.

In terms of climate change, global warming will add heat to the earth, that is mixed by the atmosphere. The El Nino is different in that it is caused by a local warming pocket of the equatorial oceans. The impact of the El Nino is add a higher temperature water, to the earth's oceans, to create a local ocean affect that can impact normal weather patterns.

The El Nino appears to b caused by breeches in the earths crust. The extra warm water released below the ocean causes entrapped CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, This effect is very significant, since heat and the CO2 comes from the bottom of the ocean all the way to the surface, and not just from the surface, per manmade global warming. This is more CO2 per unit of heat.

Would you agree that there is a correlation between drops in fossil fuel use, and icification events ? Fossil fuels also create aerosols that would block radiation to the surface from space ala tambora. Bombs, nucleqr or not and  fires  would also create the dust that i would associate with radiation blocking

It may be an equilibrium caused by co2 and greenhouse gasses due to increacing co2 emmision ammount causing an in balance in the equilibrium. When co2 emmissions year on year and dust is equalised, the planet does what it does naturally and reaches an equilibrium. It could be just the increacing co2 stalling causing the ice events.

[Bored chemist]

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...

No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.

We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight,  or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.

The word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daring_Young_Man_on_the_Flying_Trapeze

You are right, from our point of view, we are stationary, (any point of view is equally valid) and as you say, there's nothing to push against. That's why setting off a bomb wouldn't move us.

[Bored chemist]

Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,

Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.

Unlike you, scientists hundreds of years ago worked out that the heat  energy released from coal in a steam boiler went into producing steam by providing the latent heat of evaporation of the water..

[Bored chemist]

I believe the earthquakes shortened the length of days by a few fractions of q second, maybe a Tzar bomb would do that?

You might want to do the maths.
In principle, me climbing to the top of the stairs changes the length of the day- but not noticeably.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,

Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.

Unlike you, scientists hundreds of years ago worked out that the heat  energy released from coal in a steam boiler went into producing steam by providing the latent heat of evaporation of the water..

Unfortunatley, im only comparitavley young.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...

No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.

We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight,  or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.

The word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daring_Young_Man_on_the_Flying_Trapeze

You are right, from our point of view, we are stationary, (any point of view is equally valid) and as you say, there's nothing to push against. That's why setting off a bomb wouldn't move us.

It does

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight

Again comparitavley  young.