It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound

Originally posted by logicalview
The current accepted scientific view of the sun is that it is a giant thermonuclear reactor converting hydrogen to helium and has a surface temperature of nearly 6000 degrees celcius. I would have to say on that basis life as we know it would struggle to survive!


That is the entire point of the cold sun theory, the sun is COLD and the inhabitants live within the planet not on the surface.


The sun is a star, not a planet.
The hypothesis is bunk.
Sorry nobody is living inside the thermonuclear furnace unless their wearing SPF 5000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000 sun block


[edit on 5-1-2009 by jfj123]




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So the sun is a star and not a planet (and 6000 degrees Centigrade)?

You know this how, jfj123?

Doesn't it bother you when you go to the peak of a mountain (while hiking of course
)...

And instead of it being hotter (because there is less atmosphere and you are closer to the sun...
), it's COOLER?

Doesn't it make you wonder?

Hmm....?



[edit on 14-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


Cool blue flame? From gas?

I don't think so. (psst... It's an oxidation process).

That shiny thing in the sky (during the day
)... That AIN'T no oxidation process.


Next analogy?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
So the sun is a star and not a planet (and 6000 degrees Centigrade)?

You know this how, jfj123?

It's called black body radiation. Plot the sun's spectrum and you can easily find its temperature.


Doesn't it bother you when you go to the peak of a mountain (while hiking of course
)...

And instead of it being hotter (because there is less atmosphere and you are closer to the sun...
), it's COOLER?

Doesn't it make you wonder?

Nope. PV=nRT where T=PV/nR. Less atmospheric pressure, lower temperature. Additionally, the sun is 93 million miles away. You reduced your distance by about one mile, just how much hotter do you think it should be 1 mile closer?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Explain to me a comet's tail as it's orbit brings it closer to the Sun, if not by heat from sunlight vaporizing/melting various compounds which make up portions of the object?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The sun is a huge source of energy.

The fact that 'heat' doesn't have much range... just another one of those details that doesn't seem to really register with anyone.

Ah, NgcHunter, still dragging your 'black body' ball-n-chain around?


That's the spirit.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
The sun is a huge source of energy.

The fact that 'heat' doesn't have much range... just another one of those details that doesn't seem to really register with anyone.

Heat IS energy. Infrared light has just as much range as visible light. A fact that doesn't seem to register with you.


Ah, NgcHunter, still dragging your 'black body' ball-n-chain around?


You still haven't proven basic physics wrong. You should also take a high school chemistry class, that "cold mountain" ball-n-chain of yours really hurts your credibility.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Hey NgcHunter.


>'just how much hotter do you think it should be 1 mile closer?'

I don't know... Maybe I was thinking you had a mile less of atmosphere to lose all that HEAT to...



>'You still haven't proven basic physics wrong.'

Truth be told... you seem like a nice guy. And I just felt sorry for for.



If you would think about it (yeah, like THAT is going to happen), you would notice in your response 'explaining away' the temperature problem with the model at the top of the tall hill/mountain, I couldn't help but notice I didn't see the ROLE OF THE SUN anywhere in your standard pressure/volume/temperature equations...

that you serve up as a 'solution'.

So... What IS the role of the Sun in your equation? in this set of observations?

You know... The thing that drove some of those guys in the old days to wonder if the Earth REALLY was the center of the universe...

Was the way you basically had to stand on your head to make the 'science' work.

The fact the you serve up the PVT equations like they are an absolute is just TOO funny.

Those PVT equations though somewhat useful totally breakdown under empircal testing...

They have a limited range of usability before they start to lose their rigor.


If you are going to defend a notion that is basically indefensible (the Sun is 6000 degrees), yet might want to base your arguments on something a little more bedrock than...

InfraRed having a substantial range.

(You can't REALLY be saying that the emissions from the Sun are InfraRed can you?
)

By chance did you catch the experiment(s) where the guy 'proved' the power generated by a dolphins tail?



The whole time the solution is staring this guy in the face... Even with his high speed cameras...

The dolphins IMPEL themselves thru the water!

But NO. He ONLY SEES the dolphin propelling themselves thru the water.

So he gets his 30 lb wooden mallet and FORCES the data to fit.

And gets a ridiculous rating on the muscle output of these poor dolphins.

It was a classic, much like your substantiation that the Sun is HOT!, of ALWAYS force fitting the solution to fit a preconceived notion...

Of having the brain 'see' a solution... that SIMPLY is NOT supported by the physical/empirical evidence.

You CAN'T possibly even contemplate anything else... Can you?



[edit on 19-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
I don't know... Maybe I was thinking you had a mile less of atmosphere to lose all that HEAT to...



Take a basic chemistry course, the less atmospheric pressure you're under, the lower the temperature will be. If there was a significantly lesser amount of air molecules present at that altitude itself, you'd be dead from lack of air to breathe.



>'You still haven't proven basic physics wrong.'

Truth be told... you seem like a nice guy. And I just felt sorry for for.

That doesn't even begin to address the issue.


If you would think about it (yeah, like THAT is going to happen), you would notice in your response 'explaining away' the temperature problem with the model at the top of the tall hill/mountain, I couldn't help but notice I didn't see the ROLE OF THE SUN anywhere in your standard pressure/volume/temperature equations...

That's because it doesn't factor into the reason why the temperature is lessened. You don't need to account for the sun, or the lessened distance to it, because one mile less than 93 million doesn't matter. The sun is the same whether you're at sea level or on the mountain.

They have a limited range of usability before they start to lose their rigor.

When you demonstrate a basic understanding of chemistry and the relationship between pressure and temperature then you can start nitpicking about using more advanced math to come up with an exact solution. You have yet to demonstrate a basic understanding, which works well enough to take the air out of your theory. It's up to you to prove that I've exceeding the range of usability of the basic formula to an extent that makes your "theory" a valid alternative. By the way, the major assumptions and simplifications made in the PV=nRT formula have nothing to do with the sun and work better as pressure decreases. Full disclosure, they also work less well at lower temperatures, but it's a zero sum game if pressure is decreasing alongside temperature.

By the way, once you demostrate an understanding PV=nRT, more advanced modeling of real gases retain the principle that decreasing pressure decreases temperature. And no, the sun still doesn't factor into it.


InfraRed having a substantial range.

(You can't REALLY be saying that the emissions from the Sun are InfraRed can you?
)

The sun emits in the IR part of the spectrum, yes. In fact, here's a picture of the sun's emissions in infrared light:

Care to disprove that? For all of your bluster about empirical evidence you can't seem to produce a shred of your own.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


NgcHunter.


I said you seemed like a nice guy...

Hey, I meant it... so live with it.

It's not my fault you're out of your element, locked in your glass case.

I might have had a little classical training.


The problem big guy is one of retention... You see when you're blessed (some might say it's a curse) with the ability to remember long list of USELESS facts...

You start to notice some things just simply don't jive.

I set a prime piece of 'empirical' right in front of you...

And you start babbling about chemistry.



Dude PVT is typically covered in IPS (Introduction to Physical Science).

>'That's because it' (the sun) 'doesn't factor into the reason why the temperature is lessened.'

Do you hear yourself?



This discussion is about the output of the Sun... But yet, you magnimously don't feel in the scenario I've served up that...

the Sun CAN'T be part of it.

OPEN YOUR EYES and realize, the energy output of the sun (NOT coming to us in infrared)...

Doesn't shift into thermal energy... Until it's RECEIVED.

Despite your attempt to use closed system equations (of little value
) to somehow MAGICALLY wash away the effect of the ENERGY RECEIPT...

The reason the temperature is lower... is because there is LESS ATMOSPHERE to receive it.

Totally counter-intutitive... Much like the superior movement achieved thru impelling (vs propelling).



Hello! Even in YOUR argument, you postulated that the energy receipt at sea-level and 1 mile height is fairly close...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Time to wake up NgcHunter.



Such a nice picture!

Psst. What IS the range of infrared?


[edit on 19-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Dude PVT is typically covered in IPS (Introduction to Physical Science).

You claim to remember facts that jive or don't jive with each other, yet you don't seem to remember 2 seconds ago when I said it was covered in basic chemistry classes.


Do you hear yourself?

The question is, do you understand what I just said? Apparently not. The reason that the relevant formula doesn't need to factor in the sun is because your theory about mountain temperature is simply wrong. You're completely blind to that possibility, so of course you do everything you can to discount the formula.


OPEN YOUR EYES and realize, the energy output of the sun (NOT coming to us in infrared)...

Actually, by and large the sun's energy DOES come to us in the form of infrared light. I just showed you that the sun emits strongly in infrared, you did nothing to disprove me.


Doesn't shift into thermal energy... Until it's RECEIVED.

Your theory could be refuted by a high schooler with adequate knowledge of basic chemistry.


Despite your attempt to use closed system equations (of little value
) to somehow MAGICALLY wash away the effect of the ENERGY RECEIPT...

It's not "magic," if you'd bother to educate yourself you'd realize that there is no differential effect of the sun between mountainous altitudes and sea level. THAT is why the sun does not factor into the relevant formulae.


The reason the temperature is lower... is because there is LESS ATMOSPHERE to receive it.

No, the reason temperature is lower is because there is less atmospheric pressure. Reduced pressure = reduced temperature. This is demonstrated with simple aerosol canisters:
www.mansfieldct.org...


Hello! Even in YOUR argument, you postulated that the energy receipt at sea-level and 1 mile height is fairly close...

Therefore the only thing causing a difference in temperature is pressure.


Psst. What IS the range of infrared?


It doesn't stop, but it spreads out at the same rate as any other light according to the inverse square law:
I = C/d2
Seriously, I'd recommend picking up some basic physics and chemistry textbooks.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Hey NgcHunter.


So the long and the short of it...

Is you can only SPOUT DOGMA.

Your 'refutations' are vague generalities...

Repeated claims as to MY lack of 'knowledge' only exposes the full depth of lack of EMPIRICAL proof to back up anything you say.

You show me very nice pictures, suitable for ANY coffee table.

Psst. Infrared... NOT in the visible spectrum.



Temperature difference?

NOT due lack of pressure... Due to LESS absorption.

Energy 'volume'... The same for all intensive purposes.

It's manifestion, which appears as heat (temperature), is less due to the lack of medium to absorb it.

You seem to want to skip over rather quickly that you have the energy source being the same as the energy effect.

A VERY close analogy... in the Great North many roads have the ice/snow DISAPPEAR from the road surfaces in 20 degree below zero weather...

Dude... You can walk around in 20 degree below zero weather in shorts and a t-shirt. In PERFECT comfort!

And because of EXACTLY the same principle you seem to be unable to wrap your brain around.

It's not infrared... TILL IT'S CONVERTED by absorption!




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Hey NgcHunter.


So the long and the short of it...

Is you can only SPOUT DOGMA.

Your 'refutations' are vague generalities...

Infared images, temperature and pressure formulae are "vague generalities"? No, it's the plain and simple truth, how much more direct could you possible get? It's really a shame that a person could fall for this kind of misinformation in the face of the truth.


Repeated claims as to MY lack of 'knowledge' only exposes the full depth of lack of EMPIRICAL proof to back up anything you say.

First of all, since you're the one making wild claims that go against science as well as everyday experience, the burden is on you to back up what you say with proof. Secondly, all one needs is to expose one's skin to an high pressure aerosol can at point blank to get "EMPIRICAL" proof of what I just said. If you really believe that pressure does not affect air temperature, then go ahead and expose your skin to a compressed air can for cleaning keyboards for 30 seconds straight at point blank and if that doesn't freeze your skin off, then I'll take that as "evidence."


You show me very nice pictures, suitable for ANY coffee table.

Psst. Infrared... NOT in the visible spectrum.

No joke, it wasn't a visible wavelength image. As I said, it was taken in the infrared part of the spectrum (wow, I'm having to repeat myself yet again). In the visible part of the spectrum the sun looks like this:
www.jatobservatory.org...


Temperature difference?

NOT due lack of pressure... Due to LESS absorption.

Prove it with the aerosol can experiment if you're really so confident.


It's manifestion, which appears as heat (temperature), is less due to the lack of medium to absorb it.

The heat from the sun travels as infrared light, it doesn't need a medium to absorb it. It provide the same heating on a mountain as it does at sea level. That leaves atmospheric pressure as the major temperature determining factor. If you think atmospheric pressure doesn't matter you'd do the simple aerosol can experiment and prove me wrong, but I think you know better and are just trying to evoke a response out of me by peddling something even you don't believe in.


It's not infrared... TILL IT'S CONVERTED by absorption!

I can't even describe what I really think of this statement because it'd get me banned. Suffice it to say, infrared images of the sun prove otherwise.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
You might want to get a second opinion on the travel range of infrared.

Hint: It has one of the smallest potential travel distances...



Not to mention everything that effectively screens it.


I can't help but notice you TOTALLY side-stepped the semi-load of EMPIRICAL I dumped on your feet.

Again...


Images that are enhanced...

Well now, they would not be REAL images.

NASA has made an astonishing living serving up falsified data since it's inception.

Sorry dude... the nuclear Sun... the number 1 lie that NASA has lined their niche with...



I NEVER said pressure plays NO role in PVT. That is entirely an embellishment on your part in...

Of course, your goofy aerosol works exactly as advertised. It simply has NO relevance to the subject at hand.

I'm afraid my friend, your blind adoration of Science, is really 'science'.

If you were a student of the History of Science, you might be more flexible in your thinking...

Not to mention more conversant in dynamics & fluid dynamics... (Have you read any of the Science on the new generations of turbo jets? The majority of the flow goes AROUND the engine).

THAT my friend is not 'lift', but technology based on totally suppressed impellors.

Using work from people with names long ago scratched from the registers of polite people.

It's NOT in your text books.



Relevance?

A LOT of the formerly SUPPRESSED technology is making its way into mainstream ACTUAL USAGE (read embedded in engineering/technology)

NOT to mention, the secret technologies that has existed since around somewhere in the '30s.

Do you REALLY think we went to the Moon in rockets? Do you have ANY understanding of ANYTHING engineering related?

There is simply NO end to the actual usage of hidden Science... NOT FOUND in your precious textbooks.

Come on, if you are in any way, shape or form an interlocutor for the truth, explain to me how water evaporates at 20 degrees below zero!

Hint: Conversion by absorption.

(I'm not going to let you off that one till your answer NgcHunter.
)

Hey, I got it... Maybe a rogue low pressure system came thru the neighborhood!

No. No. I've got it... It was a freak tornado that hit an aerosol can factory, after it bounced off a trailer park...

(Ouch, hurt myself laughing
)

Seriously, I think I figured out your conceptual problem...

You just don't understand this thing... temperature.

In the real world... It's not what you think it is.

But back on planet text book...

You are obviously so far above my lowliness...

Maybe you could put your PVT equations where your mouth is and I don't know, use something like the internet weather info to plug REAL values into your trusty equations and show how us airheads EXACTLY how right you are?

You've got P, you've got V, should give you T right?



Just SHOW me.



>'I can't even describe what I really think of this statement because it'd get me banned. Suffice it to say, infrared images of the sun prove otherwise.'

Dude... We are ALL friends here. Just a friendly chat. So just chill.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
You might want to get a second opinion on the travel range of infrared.

Hint: It has one of the smallest potential travel distances...

No, infrared light is just another part of the spectrum, it has no more issue reaching earth than visible light.


Not to mention everything that effectively screens it.


What does that have to do with it's "range"? It's light, it doesn't have "range," it goes until it's absorbed.


I can't help but notice you TOTALLY side-stepped the semi-load of EMPIRICAL I dumped on your feet.

You didn't offer a shred of empirical evidence. I've given you more than enough. Now it's time to put up. Show me that you don't have any issues with the aerosol can experiment or admit you have no evidence. THAT is empirical evidence.


Images that are enhanced...

Well now, they would not be REAL images.

It's a real image.


NASA has made an astonishing living serving up falsified data since it's inception.

It's a real image. Prove it's faked or admit you're dead wrong.


Sorry dude... the nuclear Sun... the number 1 lie that NASA has lined their niche with...

Prove it.


I NEVER said pressure plays NO role in PVT. That is entirely an embellishment on your part in...

You said PVT didn't work and didn't apply. Now you've changed your tune.


Of course, your goofy aerosol works exactly as advertised. It simply has NO relevance to the subject at hand.

Actually it's an empirical demonstration that reducing pressure decreases temperature drastically just as described by PV=nRT. Thank you for admitting that it works.


A LOT of the formerly SUPPRESSED technology is making its way into mainstream ACTUAL USAGE (read embedded in engineering/technology)

You're just baiting me to say something ban-worthy, aren't you? How long are you going to continue off-topic ranting?


Do you REALLY think we went to the Moon in rockets?
Do you have any proof we didn't? And yes, I really do know that we did. In order to believe that we didn't you'd have to conclude that amateur astronomers were in on it and faking their photos too:



Come on, if you are in any way, shape or form an interlocutor for the truth, explain to me how water evaporates at 20 degrees below zero!

Gradual sublimation, which incidently, occurs more rapidly at lower atmospheric pressure. Let ice sit long enough with a good breeze and low humidity, and a significant amount will sublimate away as air molecules on the upper end of the kinetic energy bell curve knock off water molecules - even at 20 below ice is coated with a thin layer of water. This same process can occur in your freezer without any "absorption" as long as the air is well circulated and arid. Frost-free freezers work via this method.
amos.indiana.edu...
What does this have to do with the difference in temperature between sea level and a mountain? Nothing. But hey, it's becoming rapidly apparent to me that you're incapable of staying on subject or understanding the differences between individual concepts.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


>'No, infrared light is just another part of the spectrum, it has no more issue reaching earth than visible light.'

Guess again Earthman. That would be why night vision googles don't have infinite range, the way you are implying.

>'What does that have to do with it's "range"? It's light, it doesn't have "range," it goes until it's absorbed.'

It simply doesn't have the ability to go thru much of anything.

Pretty much everything interferes with infrared transmission.

Do you understand the concept of interferring with whatever is the object of your investigation by interacting with it?

I can only assume your MASS CONFUSION as to the nature of infrared, is your repeatedly stated (mistaken) belief that the sunlight is primarily infrared.

>'THAT is empirical evidence.'

No... What that is... is you refusing to even considering to look at the two very real examples that have been provided for your viewing pleasure.



I SIMPLY don't have to prove ANYTHING with regards to NASA.

What you are espousing is more of a religious nature... than anything based on fact. I respect your freedom of religion...

and won't venture into that briarpatch.

Psst. Have you ever wondered why NASA doesn't provide ANY live feeds?

Their unending 'cleaning up' of pretty much everything they touch has been more than adequately covered elsewhere, right here at ATS.

With regards to PVT. What I stated quite clearly that it has NO relevance to our mile high scenario...

The rest is strictly your imaginings.

You are less than an interlocutor, if you can't even admit the limited usage of PVT. It represents an ideal and as such, seriously breaks down when you do limit testing.

Or is that just a level of detail that is too tedious for you to follow?



With regards to suppressed technology...

You are not really going to repeat that naive statement of yours that nothing gets suppressed are you?

That would ALSO represent an ideal...

Which is sadly not in keeping with reality.

Kind of like our dialogue, with you more than once refusing to look at anything I have to say with anything approaching neutrality...

What is that thing you say?

That can't be... (so therefore it's never looked at and never even considered).

Don't you just love 'science'?



Sublimation?

Funny... Which one of the PVTs is that?

Careful, you almost considered what I said... that's dangerously close to heresy.



The snow/ice disappears VERY rapidly.

Oh... What's this...

>'Kinetic energy'?

Is that ANYTHING like CONVERTED by ABSORPTION?



Tada!

AND dance party at golems!!!

I had faith in you NgcHunter...

Congratulations!



[edit on 19-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Guess again Earthman. That would be why night vision googles don't have infinite range, the way you are implying.

Please, I beg you, take some basic science courses. Someone should be getting paid to teach you this stuff. Infrared light does not have a "limited range" the way you are implying. Obviously, your ignorance of how night vision goggles work has clouded your perception of how light works. Night vision goggles use a image intensifier on near infrared light invisible to the human eye but close to the visible spectrum, thus they rely on miniscule amounts ambient lighting from things like stars and moonlight.

For some models of goggles the aperture is too small to pull in enough photons to intensify without active illumination past a short range. That's a function of taking a picture in the dark, wavelength has nothing to do with it, it may as well be visible light being intensified - if there are no ambient photons to begin with you won't see anything. If something emits its own light, like a tracer round, it'll show up brightly even at long range, which deflates your idea.


It simply doesn't have the ability to go thru much of anything.

Neither does visible light. Your point? Range implies it goes a set distance until it stops. There is no set distance on light regardless of wavelength, end of story. It goes until something absorbs it.


Do you understand the concept of interferring with whatever is the object of your investigation by interacting with it?

So you think something is stopping infrared light from the sun from ever reaching earth? lol


I can only assume your MASS CONFUSION as to the nature of infrared, is your repeatedly stated (mistaken) belief that the sunlight is primarily infrared.


Well, a huge chunk of the sun's light is. Them's the facts.


I SIMPLY don't have to prove ANYTHING with regards to NASA.

Yes, you do. You have made huge claims regarding NASA, now prove it.


What you are espousing is more of a religious nature...

Says the person saying they don't have to prove anything they say about NASA. We're supposed to take your word on faith alone! lol


Psst. Have you ever wondered why NASA doesn't provide ANY live feeds?

It's called NASA TV, and yes, it's live. I can personally vouch for that. I've watched shuttle launches side by side in person with NASA TV as well as observing the space station in person through the scope with NASA TV side by side.


With regards to PVT. What I stated quite clearly that it has NO relevance to our mile high scenario...

It's all about air pressure, the fact that you won't do the experiment tells me you know you're wrong. Your attempt to claim that air pressure matters in one case but not this case is hilarious. Thanks for admitting it at least in part.


You are less than an interlocutor, if you can't even admit the limited usage of PVT. It represents an ideal and as such, seriously breaks down when you do limit testing.

I see, you can't handle a serious discussion so you resort to flat out lying about what I said. I told you the specific limitations and said that it's up to you to prove that I ssomehow violated those limitations in how I applied it in a way that would favor your theory. More advanced mathmatical modeling of gases retains the relationship between temperature and pressure, it just refines it. For our purposes here, PV=nRT is good enough until you can prove otherwise.


You are not really going to repeat that naive statement of yours that nothing gets suppressed are you?

It's off topic and an unsupported claim.


Sublimation?

Funny... Which one of the PVTs is that?

As I said, it's a completely different off-topic concept and unrelated to our discussion of a gas's temperature. Just because you lack an adequate understanding of PV=nRT doesn't mean your expectations about what it's designed to model should apply.


Oh... What's this...

>'Kinetic energy'?

Is that ANYTHING like CONVERTED by ABSORPTION?

Do you even know what you're talking about? You throw terms around like you think you do, but you obviously don't. The air pressure/temperature relationship is nothing like sublimation.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I had a good laugh this morning while I watched the Suns rays striking frost, BEING CONVERTED to thermal energy and VERY RAPIDLY just keep producing smoke looking like steam.

You have ZERO understanding of ENERGY.

You have ZERO understanding of WATER.

You have close to ZERO understanding of the Sun.

You live in rather amusing STERILE universe.



You need to escape this glass case you refuse to exit, climb out of your lazy boy, stop using your 'text' books and moronic 'science' as a filter for the wonderland that exists OUTSIDE of your glass prison.

I had a HUGE laugh thinking of your ZERO relevance postulations, when hiking this weekend... We had some phenomenonal weather and quite paradoxically...

I walked thru a three layer system.

We had a street level layer (at about 500 ft altitude), nothing really out of the ordinary low to mid 30s. Cool and breezy.

Another 500 ft up, we had the cloud/fog bank of all cloud/fog banks, freezing/freezing fog, incredibly high humidity, mild breezes, covered in ice... Did I say it was freezing?


And then the capper, another 500 ft up, warm, warm, warm air... In the mid 50s... Mid 50s. A highly energized, quite breezy layer...

Heated by the sun, the light striking the air, being converted to thermal energy, being absorbed. You know... ABSORPTION.


Now I talked to the air and told it that NgcHunter said the IT'S BEHAVIOR was TOTALLY OUT OF LINE with NgcHunters very narrow views of PERMISSIBLE BEHAVIOR (according to his text books AND 'science')...

Curiously I didn't get a verbal response... though I think I might have felt a playful breeze on my face...

I don't think that the Sun takes you very seriously NgcHunter.



I can't image why...

You seem to be standing on the teetering soap box touting the durability of INFRARED. When...

it can NOT EVEN penetrate a cloud bank.



Why is that golem?

I DON'T know... Maybe, just maybe...

it's because sunlight gets shifted/converted AND ABSORBED by the WATER vapor.

You, my friend, 100% labor under the illusion of water being this inert chemical compound H20...

If YOU had any sort of REAL education, you MIGHT begin to understand that WATER IS ALIVE.



I personally find it amusing to no end exactly how clueless you are...

And thank you for taking the time to PARROT so much information. Once again your pictures are quite impressive.

Psst. You might also want to review the exact mechanics of this process... sublimation.

The only thing you have right... is the ICE is there at one point, and then it's not (there).

---

Nothing has ever been suppressed.

NASA has never lied.

Nice little fairy tale world you live in.



Have a nice one big guy! Talk to you soon.


BTW. A special friend of mine says you should listen more to your friend Nathan.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by golemina]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
I had a good laugh this morning while I watched the Suns rays striking frost, BEING CONVERTED to thermal energy and VERY RAPIDLY just keep producing smoke looking like steam.

It'd be nice if this had anything at all to do with the subject of temperature differences between sea level and a mountaintop. Sadly, it doesn't.


You have ZERO understanding of ENERGY.

You have ZERO understanding of WATER.

So do you admit then that pressure does cause the temperature of a gas to change significantly, that I qualified the usefulness of PV=nRT but left it to you to prove that I somehow violated the useful limitations of the formula, but because I left you with nowhere to go you now resort to chest-beating?


your ZERO relevance postulations

So many claims, so little evidence.


Heated by the sun, the light striking the air, being converted to thermal energy, being absorbed. You know... ABSORPTION.


So you admit your "experiment" didn't control for the variable of relative sunlight, and not only that, it refuted your original claim about how altitude affects temperature... How does that prove your claim that the reason mountains are colder at high altitude is due to the earth absorbing the sun's light?


Now I talked to the air and told it that NgcHunter said the IT'S BEHAVIOR was TOTALLY OUT OF LINE with NgcHunters very narrow views of PERMISSIBLE BEHAVIOR (according to his text books AND 'science')...

Introducing this new variable was not part of the original claim. Let me break it down for you in real simple fashion so that you can understand your own original claim and why it's wrong. You claimed temperatures decrease the higher you are. You've now inverted your own claim (:lol
but more importantly you changed the variable. "the higher you are" = increasing altitude, not changes in sunlight due to fog or clouds. Given a mountaintop on a clear day, it will be colder than at the foot of the mountain. The only thing that has changed is your altitude, and likewise, atmospheric pressure. Less atmosphere over your head = less atmosphere pressing down on you and the air around you = less atmospheric pressure = colder temperature as shown in PV=nRT. If you introduce a new variable then you should be using a formula that takes that variable into account. You created a new variable to try to disprove my formula by applying it inappropriately. That's second grader logic.


You seem to be standing on the teetering soap box touting the durability of INFRARED. When...

it can NOT EVEN penetrate a cloud bank.

Neither did a good chunk of visible light, I guarantee you. As I said before, it's just light, just like visible light. Yes, it can be blocked just like visible light, but neither one have a set "range." If you want to discuss the properties of light and relative absorbances of various chemicals then use the correct terminology.


I personally find it amusing to no end exactly how clueless you are...

I think that personal attack might violate board rules. Goodby golem.


The only thing you have right... is the ICE is there at one point, and then it's not (there).

If ice goes straight to gas then it's sublimation, by definition. If it melted first THEN evaporated then you should have said it melted, otherwise your description of what you claim to have seen is a lie. Words have meaning.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
>'It'd be nice if this had anything at all to do with the subject of temperature differences between sea level and a mountaintop. Sadly, it doesn't.'

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic.


That somehow YOU think the atmosphere should conform to some static model (PVT based, of course!
) is surprising.

Did it escape you that the 'normal' temperature gradients were in FACT REVERSED (during my little hike
). I couldn't tell from your 'variables' this 'response'...

You persist with this PVT thing. Yeah, it works. Maybe, at some point it might dawn on you... when aren't exactly in the 7th grade anymore.

I am however baffled, at some of your responses to claims that were simply never made.

I can only speculate that you seem quite rattled.

We are ALL friends here... We can always pick this up, when you feel up to it.

I guess it would only be fair to say, that the only place you could take an accurate sampling of light from the sun would be OUTSIDE our atmosphere.

Is that where your sampling is from?


I can once again assume that has GOT to be the source of your entirely erroneous assumptions (and profile) of the breakdown of sunlight.

I do have one question... What do you make of the 'greenhouse effect'?

About the sublimation... Sorry, not right.

Goes from ice to gas (NO middleman
).

Also no layer of water on the ice in your freezer. Just goes to gas.

Me lie? I DON'T think so... (How OLD is your text book?)

Ice->Gas.



[English as a 2nd language! 42nd time is the charm.
]

[edit on 21-1-2009 by golemina]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join