Relativity (Opened to Everyone)

[IBDaMann]

This is not what quantum mechanics is. You are inaccurately describing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. What is quantum mechanics? I'll give you a do-over.
... Just stick with the topic. What is quantum mechanics?

It all comes down to the indeterminacy in position or momentum associated with the wave properties of matter. Which is presicely what I Wrote.

Now you stepped in it quite a bit deeper. Here you are doubling down on your mistaken notion of quantum mechanics. You hazarded a guess that quantum mechanics = the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle while pretending to mock me for making you take such a wild guess, and when the curtain was opened to reveal that you were embarrassingly mistaken, you had no other choice but to throw another hissy fit and insist that you were right all along.

Being able to google Heisenberg and blurt it out wouldn't even be adequate to earn you a D minus in introductory physics.

How many points do you believe one would get on a PHYS 101 exam for writing "indeterminacy in position or momentum associated with the wave properties of matter"?

The history of quantum mechanics involved a number of people and ideas, starting with Einstein's theory on the photoelectric effect,

Too funny. It started with Max Planck. Planck's law is what ties the wave-particle duality to classical physics. Of course you are on the record as doubling down on your mocking denial of this with your "" I can't thank you enough.

Now, if we could get back to your statements, you were very unclear about two things you were insisting:
1. What non-Newtonian particles or objects do you claim exist that do not conserve momentum or energy?
2. How does classical Maxwellian electromagnetism differ from classical non-Maxwellian electromagnetism?

 

[IBDaMann]

Colloquy is probably Into the Night.

Are you really so stupid that you can't distinguish between different people? If you are, well then you are, and I guess there's no shame in that kind of handicap and I suppose you shouldn't try to sweep it under the rug.

 

[IBDaMann]

Shouldn't have to be googled by anyone who had freshman level introductory college physics.
Indeterminacy based on the wave nature of particles is basically the foundation of QM.

No, it isn't. Obviously, you've never learned quantum mechanics.

You caught Cypress on this one. You goaded him into insisting that he somehow did learn quantum mechanics. He has no idea what kind of expertise/education he is now insisting he has. Hint: he has already shown that he doesn't understand even the fundamentals, only being able to regurgitate what others have opined on Quora, correctly or otherwise.

One thing is certain, until I mentioned Planck's law, he had never even heard of it. He has no idea what it is or what it entails. Basically, Cypress has declared he is an expert in black body radiation and has no idea how to speak to any of it. We should discuss this with him, except that I have a sneaking suspicion that he will be too cowardly to discuss the matter.

Let's find out.

 

[IBDaMann]

[the topic of inertial reference frames] was covered in highschool physics. Galileo and Einstein recognized it.

You think Galileo "recognized" inertial frames of reference but humbly decided to let future generations realize Relativity. Well, I'm glad that you still feel appointed to speak for dead people and to assign them your ignorance and bogus positions.

Newton's first law speaks to it.

Nope. You know this is a bogus statement because if Newton's law had included an "inertial frame of reference" parameter, we'd all be aware of it. The fact that Relativity adheres to Newton's laws doesn't equate to Newton having authored Relativity. There is obviously no statement too absurd for you to regurgitate from the internet.

It's any body or system in uniform motion.

Nope. If you were in a rocket in a trajectory from sea level to the mesosphere at a constant speed (uniform motion) such that you remained over the same geographic point on earth, you would nonetheless change inertial reference frames.

That's why the classical laws of physics in an airplane passenger cabin travelling 600 mph operate exactly the same as the classical laws of physics in a stationary house on the Earth's surface.

Non sequitur. The concepts of inertial reference frames and time dilation are not the reason experiments yield the same results. Non-accelerating experiments yield the same results despite differing inertial reference frames. It would do you good to learn what an inertial reference frame is, and I don't recommend asking someone who is equally confused as you are.

Question: Did you ban Into the Night from your Relativity thread because he was pointing out your errors or because he was blurting out correct answers willy-nilly? I know that he can be so rude in the respect. I totally dare him to try to do that to you here in my thread.

 

[Into the Night]

You caught Cypress on this one. You goaded him into insisting that he somehow did learn quantum mechanics. He has no idea what kind of expertise/education he is now insisting he has. Hint: he has already shown that he doesn't understand even the fundamentals, only being able to regurgitate what others have opined on Quora, correctly or otherwise.

One thing is certain, until I mentioned Planck's law, he had never even heard of it. He has no idea what it is or what it entails. Basically, Cypress has declared he is an expert in black body radiation and has no idea how to speak to any of it. We should discuss this with him, except that I have a sneaking suspicion that he will be too cowardly to discuss the matter.

Let's find out.

It's no surprise he never heard of Planck's law. He denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well.
He doesn't even understand Newton's law of Motion nor Newton's law of Gravitation either.

I don't where he's getting his buzzwords from, but he has no understanding of any of them. He's desperate to 'sound smart', and only showing anyone that DOES understand this stuff how little he knows.

 

[Into the Night]

Question: Did you ban Into the Night from your Relativity thread because he was pointing out your errors or because he was blurting out correct answers willy-nilly? I know that he can be so rude in the respect. I totally dare him to try to do that to you here in my thread.

Pretty much the reason. Like any censorship by these twits, it was to head back to the Kiddie Pool.

I noticed that the Relativity thread has dissolved into pointless insults and little else now.

 

[IBDaMann]

QED. Any one of these you would like to discuss further?

This is great. You are making this very fun. Thank you. Let the coal-raking begin.

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas meaning it can absorb IR radiation

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas that somehow differs from any other gas. If you had paid attention in school you would have learned that all substances absorb IR. You would certainly know this if you had ever learned Planck's law, Stefan-Boltzmann and the other black body science models ... but you never did, so you weren't able to call boooooolsch't when you were fed the shit. You just ate it up. Anyway, you are going to have HUGE problems when we get to Stefan-Boltzmann and the other black body science models. Yes, you're going to have to pull a Cypress and rush to make an assault over the Google/Quora/Wikipedia panorama, ... and it won't help you. Sorry. But isn't this fun? I told you it would be.

(been known since the middle 1800's with the work of Fourier and Tyndal)

Too funny! You really are the gullible type who just can't be bothered to perform his due diligence on the crap he is told to believe. Sure Fourier and Tyndal did work in this area ... and all of their work has been purged from the body of science because it was all wrong. The scientific method falsified it all and it was discarded. Your slave-masters never filled you in on that part. I'd ask you to recall that you were never taught "Fourier Climate Science" or the "Tyndall Climate Model" because there are no such things ... but you were too busy playing hooky from school so you wouldn't know what was taught and what wasn't.

2. Energy is neither created nor destroyed so absorbed IR energy needs to be accounted for.

Exactly, and you WON'T account for it. You can't. Watch. You claim an increase in the earth's average temperature. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Ergo, if you are claiming an increase in temperature, you must account for the existence of this additional energy that was not there previously. Of course you can't violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, so amaze me by accounting for the existence of this additional energy that increases the earth's temperature. When and how does this additional energy come into existence?

p.s. I already know what move your playbook will require you to make (i.e. there is no additional energy, it is energy that is already there) and I'm all ready to bust it up ... but I have to wait for you to formally "go there." So take your time. Don't feel rushed.

3. The Greenhouse Effect is why the earth's surface temperature is about 30+degC higher than the blackbody temperature of the earth from the Stefan Boltzmann equation

This is boooolsch't that you were ordered to regurgitate and you OBEYED, despite having no idea what you just wrote. I am an expert in black body science and specifically the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you wrote nothing but gibberish. The earth's temperature is exactly what it is supposed to be. There is no subjunctive mood in science. The Stefan-Boltzmann law computes RADIANCE given temperature. Nobody knows the earth's average temperature to any useful accuracy. There is no greenhouse effect outside of your religious dogma (see point #2 above).

4. Increasing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to warming naturally

Nope. But let's keep this fun. Using science, show your assertion to be correct.

5. Humans produce a LOT of CO2 in excess of natural fluxes

Humans produce a NEGLIGIBLE amount of CO2 relative to the amount of CO2 that is consumed by the earth's plant life. Any additional CO2 that is produced by humans is greedily consumed by plants. CO2 is plant food, in case you weren't aware. There are no plants that are somehow "on a diet."

6. We KNOW it is largely human produced excess CO2

Who is "We"? Oh, this is the Marxist "We", right? ... meaning "you", right? ... and when you write "KNOW", you mean "believe." I get it. So you mistakenly believe, because you are gullible and your slave-masters commanded you to believe it, preach it, live it and die defending it, that CO2 molecules somehow come with little HTML tags detailing source of origin. You are so very keen! Too funny.

Would you believe me if I were to tell you that you have been lied to once again? All CO2 molecules are identical, but you failed to call boooooolsch't. Imagine that. Plants do not distinguish between CO2 molecules either.

we see that since the mid19th century the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has consistently become "lighter" isotopically

Nope. Who is "we"? Sorry, we've already covered this. You have been deluded into believing you somehow see isotopic measurements to within zero margin of error covering the entire atmosphere dating back to the mid19th century. Hmmmmm.

Post these data sets here in this thread. Not links. The data sets.

and the amount of 14-C has steadily decreased since fossil fuels produce far less 14-C when combusted

What's a fossil fuel? What fossils are you claiming are sold commercially as fuel? ... or do you mean fuels used by fossils? I'm not aware of any fossils that use fuel but I'm happy to learn. Teach me.

7. Finally we have temperature recordings going back a very long time now (including proxies)
1. Nope. Nobody has ever measured the earth's average temperature to any usable accuracy.
2. You are scientifically illiterate so you get a pass. Proxies are absolutely prohibited in science. Only direct measurements by calibrated instruments are permitted in valid data sets.
3. Who is "we"? Oh, you mean "you" again, yes?

This has been amazingly fun. Please tell me there will be subsequent rounds. I still need to rake you over the coals using Stefan-Boltzmann and hopefully we'll get into Planck's law. Yes, baby, bring it on!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

This is great. You are making this very fun. Thank you. Let the coal-raking begin.

You're deluded. Thanks for the reminder that engaging with you is a waste of time. You are so wrong on SO MANY POINTS it's not even worth my time to go through and poiht them all out.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're deluded. Thanks for the reminder that engaging with you is a waste of time. You are so wrong on SO MANY POINTS it's not even worth my time to go through and poiht them all out.

Aaaaah, so the bubble is burst, you rush into the phone booth and transform into SuperCoward who flees to the hills on his mighty Impulse Power.

Your king is tipped. Let me know if you ever want to play again. If you do, hopefully you'll last longer.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Aaaaah, so the bubble is burst, you rush into the phone booth and transform into SuperCoward who flees to the hills on his mighty Impulse Power.

Your king is tipped. Let me know if you ever want to play again. If you do, hopefully you'll last longer.

LOL. If that's what you need to tell yourself.

Why don't you get together with Into The Night and gfm and start your own research facility and overturn the entire fields of chemistry, physics, geology, and hydrodynamics and get yourselves a Nobel Prize?

Oh I know....because you are all morons. Or probably more like just one moron. But you've got 3X the moron goin' here.

 

[IBDaMann]

It was shown almost 200 years ago that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.

It was shown almost 200 years ago that all substances absorb IR. You have allowed yourself to be duped into believing that CO2 has magical superpowers to create energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Too funny! ... and all the while you allowed yourself to be convinced that you were a science genius because of your devotion to the Global Warming religion. Way too funny. They gotcha good. You should try not being so gullible. Your best bet in that regard would be to go back to school and pay attention this time.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

[
It was shown almost 200 years ago that all substances absorb IR.

You are so wrong it's not even funny. The bond has to have the right frequency of vibration, the right dielectric features. Ergo N2 does NOT absorb IR photons to any extent, but CO2 absorbs a LOT.

Have you ever heard of an FTIR? IT's a piece of equipment in chemistry labs that shoots IR into materials and you look to see which bonds absorb IR. NOT ALL BONDS ABSORB IR.

That's how science works.

 

[IBDaMann]

If that's what you need to tell yourself.

I don't need to tell myself anything. I just dispatched you in one post. Now people are grumbling that I was unnecessarily rough with you, e.g. "So you beat up a girl, wow you're tough" or "Why don't you pick on someone your own size." Regardless, you are bruised over from being bitch-slapped, and now you realize that you really don't know anything at all. You are painfully aware that you aren't the science genius you had been led to believe you were; you couldn't even rebut a single point. Not a one.

It's a terrible, lonely feeling when your climate justice superhero bubble gets burst and you are forced to realize you are just an ordinary, scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent loser. The good news is that a valium prescription can help take the edge off the sting.

Why don't you get together with Into The Night and gfm

We've had many conversations over the years. Into the Night is a great resource for information on the engineering side of the house. You'd be stupid to not learn from what he could teach you.

and start your own research facility

Apparently you're not getting it. The science already exists. I know it. There are maybe two posters on JPP that are in my league. There are many scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept warmizombies, however, who mistakenly think they are Einsteins and who want to duke it out with anyone who disagrees with their religious dogma. I started out simply offering to correct errors, but you understand that your kind of firebrand worshiper thinks his devout faith gives him omniscience and other divine wisdom, sufficient to defeat any "denier."

I live to spank your kind up and down the block every which way from Sunday. It's fun beyond my wildest dreams and it never gets old. ... and it's always EASY because your ilk will never learn any science. You'll only learn the dogmatic physics violations and other errors that your church requires. You have become a mindless undead. Quickly defeating you is the only possible result. You understand why zombies never win at chess, right?

Have a great day.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

One of us is definitely suffering an identity crisis ... and it's not me. I realize you are trying to resolve in your mind how the people you trusted could have lied to you so cruelly. It'll take time but some day you'll realize that you were targeted because of your stupidity and were easily scammed because of your resulting gullibility.

Yes, all substances absorb IR. Have you never seen a hamburger under a heat lamp? If you were to put a cloud of oxygen near the sun, do you think that it wouldn't get hot? You apparently don't question anything you are told to believe and you never think through anything before you post. You make debating you a piece of cake because you write the stupidest things.

The bond has to have the right frequency of vibration, the right dielectric features.

Tell me, what substances have your slave-masters told you to believe will not get hot if you put them close to the sun?

Ergo N2 does NOT absorb IR photons to any extent,

... and when you were told this, you rushed out to independently verify this in a simple experiment, yes? You didn't just believe it without calling booooolsch't, did you? After all, it would be easy to verify, so you did so, right?

Have you ever heard of an FTIR? IT's a piece of equipment in chemistry labs that shoots IR into materials and you look to see which bonds absorb IR. NOT ALL BONDS ABSORB IR.

Just tell me what substances you verified do not absorb any IR.

That's how science works.

Science doesn't work in the sense that it is some sort of process. The scientific method is the process that is followed, in this case, to verify the hypothesis that there are substances that don't absorb any IR. What were your results when you followed the scientific method to validate the hypothesis? What substances will not get hot if we were to place them close to the sun?

The floor is yours.

 

[Trumpet]

Now you stepped in it quite a bit deeper. Here you are doubling down on your mistaken notion of quantum mechanics. You hazarded a guess that quantum mechanics = the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle while pretending to mock me for making you take such a wild guess, and when the curtain was opened to reveal that you were embarrassingly mistaken, you had no other choice but to throw another hissy fit and insist that you were right all along.


How many points do you believe one would get on a PHYS 101 exam for writing "indeterminacy in position or momentum associated with the wave properties of matter"?


Too funny. It started with Max Planck. Planck's law is what ties the wave-particle duality to classical physics. Of course you are on the record as doubling down on your mocking denial of this with your "" I can't thank you enough.

Now, if we could get back to your statements, you were very unclear about two things you were insisting:
1. What non-Newtonian particles or objects do you claim exist that do not conserve momentum or energy?
2. How does classical Maxwellian electromagnetism differ from classical non-Maxwellian electromagnetism?

Suppose you tell us what the significance Maxwell's Equations are.

 

[IBDaMann]

Suppose you tell us what the significance Maxwell's Equations is.

I'll tell you what ... you start a thread on that and make a mistake. I'll correct it. I promise. Just don't ban anyone.

 

[Into the Night]

You're deluded. Thanks for the reminder that engaging with you is a waste of time. You are so wrong on SO MANY POINTS it's not even worth my time to go through and poiht them all out.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Sorry dude, you;
* cannot create energy out of nothing.
* cannot trap heat, light, or thermal energy.
* cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

You are discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You also;
* cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.
* cannot measure the global content of CO2 in the atmosphere.
* cannot measure the pH of the ocean.
* cannot measure the global ocean level.
* cannot measure the number and frequency of storms.

You are discarding statistical mathematics as well.

You are just chanting what the Church of Global Warming told you to chant. It is mindless.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. If that's what you need to tell yourself.

Why don't you get together with Into The Night and gfm and start your own research facility and overturn the entire fields of chemistry, physics, geology, and hydrodynamics and get yourselves a Nobel Prize?

Oh I know....because you are all morons. Or probably more like just one moron. But you've got 3X the moron goin' here.

He is not overturning anything. He is agreeing with it. YOU are attempting to overturn them by denying and discarding them. You just use them as meaningless buzzwords.
Science is not a prize.

 

[Into the Night]

You are so wrong it's not even funny. The bond has to have the right frequency of vibration, the right dielectric features. Ergo N2 does NOT absorb IR photons to any extent, but CO2 absorbs a LOT.

Have you ever heard of an FTIR? IT's a piece of equipment in chemistry labs that shoots IR into materials and you look to see which bonds absorb IR. NOT ALL BONDS ABSORB IR.

That's how science works.

Nitrogen absorbs infrared light.
So does CO2.
So does water.
So does methane.
So does oxygen.
So does any chemical.

There is no magick bond structure that absorbs IR. EVERYTHING absorbs IR.

Even you.

Infrared light emitted from the surface of the Earth COOLS the surface of the Earth. You seem to forget that.

You cannot heat the surface of the Earth with an even colder gas. You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas

No such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can magickally warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

meaning it can absorb IR radiation (been known since the middle 1800's with the work of Fourier and Tyndal)

Everything absorbs IR radiation. Even you.

2. Energy is neither created nor destroyed so absorbed IR energy needs to be accounted for.

And where is that energy coming from, genius?

3. The Greenhouse Effect is why the earth's surface temperature is about 30+degC higher than the blackbody temperature of the earth from the Stefan Boltzmann equation

There are no 'should be's in science. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You cannot measure it. You cannot measure the temperature of Earth either.

4. Increasing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to warming naturally

TANSTAAFL. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

5. Humans produce a LOT of CO2 in excess of natural fluxes

'Natural FLUXES'???? Buzzword fallacy. Truly hilarious!

and at rates FAR FAR FAR FAR higher than the Carbon was initially sequestered thus releasing millenia of stored carbon in under 150 years

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as 'sequestered carbon' or sequestered carbon dioxide'. Obviously you want to simply ignore the carbon cycle.

6. We KNOW it is largely human produced excess CO2

No label or tag, dude.

because of the prevalence of 12-C isotope

This is the base isotope of carbon. See the periodic table of the elements.

which is what plants preferentially fractionate

Plants don't 'fractionate' carbon. Carbon is an atom.

and we see that since the mid19th century the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has consistently become "lighter" isotopically

It is not possible to measure global concentration of CO2 or the global concentration of various isotopes of CO2.

and the amount of 14-C has steadily decreased

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers and using them as 'data'.

since fossil fuels produce far less 14-C when combusted

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't combust.

7. Finally we have temperature recordings going back a very long time now

None. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are ignoring statistical mathematics again.

(including proxies)

Science does not use proxies. Measurements must be direct. Proxies are made up data. Random numbers are not data.

which indicate the current warming is happening

You have no data. All you have is random numbers. Base rate fallacy.

and it cannot be aligned with solar cycles or other natural forcings.

There are no 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy.

Science has found that >50% of the warming since the 1950's can only really be explained if one accounts for HUMAN ACTIVITY.

No science here. Science does not make up random numbers and use them as data.

QED.

Any one of these you would like to discuss further?

I already know what the Church of Global Warming teaches. You are lost in that religion and scientifically and mathematically illiterate.

You deny and discard the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor can magickally override this law.
You deny and discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot trap heat or thermal energy. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You deny and discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law does NOT calculate temperature.
You deny and discard Planck's law. You cannot trap light.

EVERYTHING absorbs infrared light. No magick gas or vapor has anything unique about this.
EVERYTHING converts thermal energy into light. No magick gas or vapor has anything unique about this either.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.