An example of contrivance in science is the recent claimed measurement of gravity waves. Contradictions show that no such measurement was possible. Claims were made for control of the measurement way below the level of technological limitations—missing by factors of millions.
The source of the waves was said to be two black holes colliding 1.3 billion light years away. The measuring device could supposedly measure a tiny amount of motion of 0.1 atto meter (1x10-19m) on a pendulum. This motion was picked up by a laser beam reflected off the pendulum. The wavelength of the laser was about one micron. That’s ten trillion times as much wavelength as the variation due to motion. (1x10-6 ÷ 1x10-19 = 10x1012)
For a perspective, if one wave of the laser were 36 times the distance to the moon, its path would be shortened by the width of an ink line during the measurement. (36 x 384x106 ÷ 10x1012 x 39 = 0.054”) Laser light cannot be refined to have such a precise wavelength due to diffusion (noise). Even if it could, a detector which picks up the light must see a variation of one part in ten trillion in the intensity of the light, which is absurd. Detectors are either solid state, which produces parts per thousand noise, or vacuum tubes, which produce parts per million noise. Even at one part per million noise in the detector, the miss would be a factor of 10 million. (10x1012 ÷ 1x106 = 10x106) That's one part per ten trillion resolution demand being met with one part per million sensitivity—a nonmeasurement.
If the reflecting mirror (perhaps one centimeter thick) expands due to temperature change, an increased temperature of 18 trillionths of a degree centigrade would wipe out the claimed 0.1 atto meter measurement. (1x10-19 ÷ 0.01m x 5.5x10-7 = 18x10-12) (The coefficient of thermal expansion for silica is 5.5x10-7/°C) All temperatures are constantly changing by a few fractions of a degree under the most stable conditions, which means billions of times more than the required stability. The description said another laser beam was used to control the temperature, which only shows the desperation in rationalizing. Control would require measuring what is occurring, which is ridiculous at that level. No temperatures are homogeneous enough for such claims. Numerous other absurdities exist in the supposed control over motion and distance.
The experiment is called LIGO, described here: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu.
It takes no small amount of arrogance to contrive a propaganda stunt of that sort. The government spent more than a billion dollars on the project. It points to habitualized contrivance resulting from a total lack of accountability. And yet, the only basis liberals can give for the certainty of global warming created by greenhouse gases is that 97% of the scientists agree.
Global Warming Fakery
Speaking as a liberal progressive, what if human-caused global warming is the hoax conservatives say it is? Liberals could not have gotten global warming right, because correct procedures were never followed in developing the science. The basic publications do not describe methodology which can be verified by other scientists. Critics within science must argue against implications and impossibilities. What can be shown are various proofs that there is no such thing as global warming caused by greenhouse gases.
While conservatives are critics of global warming they do not produce criticism of the underlying science. Conservative critics within science say the basic science of global warming is correct, but global warming is not occurring due to the effects of clouds. They haven’t looked at the basic science, because they don’t understand it. They couldn’t understand it, because it doesn’t exist as real science. As conservatives, they will not oppose structured power; they just want the problem to go away with no one knowing how corrupt the underlying science is.
The most significant point of the science is that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, because heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere. Absorbed radiation is re-emitted in femto seconds. The time can be calculated from the wavelength of emitted radiation. All matter emits infrared radiation (IR) in proportion to its temperature. Emitted radiation is at least as strong as absorbed radiation. A single wave of emitted IR typically occurs in 83 femto seconds at 25 micron IR. Each wave of radiation absorbed is re-emitted in that amount of time. Slight variations result from conduction to nearby molecules, which re-emit similarly.
The term “heat trapping gas” was contrived by propagandists. Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere. The amount of heat entering the atmosphere during the day is the amount lost during the night.
Climatologists pretend to calculate the amount of radiation going into space. They used “radiative transfer equations” for this. These equations were produced for calculating the amount of radiation that would go through a tube in a laboratory at various concentrations of gas and radiation. Applying such math to the atmosphere ignores the infinite complexities which are beyond calculation. But the world’s largest computers were needed, which insulated the process from accountability to other scientists.
This procedure supposedly showed 3.7 watts per square meter (w/m²) less radiation leaving the planet than entering from the sun due to carbon dioxide. There can never be a difference between energy inflow and outflow beyond minor transitions because of equilibrium, as climatologists recognize. Yet they claim the 3.7 w/m² is a permanent representation of global warming upon doubling CO2. This number is supposed to result in 1°C near-surface temperature increase as the primary effect by CO2. However, watts per square meter are units of rate, while rates produce continuous change, not a fixed 1°C. The 1°C was supposedly produced by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. (Secondary effects supposedly triple the 1°C to 3°C.)
Radiative transfer equations cannot produce any such number, because radiation leaves from all points in the atmosphere with 15-30% going around greenhouse gases. That dynamic, combined with equilibrium, is beyond scientific quantitation.
A contradiction in this procedure is the claim that only human activity creates the disequilibrium of 3.7 w/m² (upon doubling the CO2). Why would there not have been a disequilibrium throughout history, when there was five times as much CO2 in the air due to volcanic activity during the dinosaur years? Sometimes, historical temperatures are claimed in terms of the amount of CO2 in the air. By that standard, there is no such thing as equilibrium of atmospheric temperature. Endless contradictions of this sort are ignored in global warming science.
About the Author / Graduate Research