[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

  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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.

[Bored chemist]

 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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.

[Bored chemist]

 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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@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?

[Bored chemist]

 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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.

[Kryptid]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[The Spoon]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@ 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@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.