| |||||||||||||
|
Physics deteriorated into fakery a long ways back due to overwhelming problems in understanding and measuring the abstract complexities. The definition of kinetic energy was incorrectly stated in 1686 by Gottfried Leibniz. It was argued for 200 years and supposedly proven as Leibniz stated in 1845 by James Joule, who stirred water in a wooden bucket to determine the amount of heat produced through motion. So little heat is produced in stirring water that it would have disappeared into the environment in seconds, while the stirring would have taken an hour or two. Joule said he accounted for environmental effects by doing an extra run, which was obviously ridiculous. He claimed to solve numerous problems which physicists could not solve (He was a hobbyist.) such as preventing increased motion of the water by using floats (which physicists tried but didn't work). Yet Joule supposedly got the modern number with only 3 parts per thousand error. It is now said to be 4.1868 Newton-meters per calorie, while Joule said it was 4.2. Since Joule did not have the slightest ability to produce such a number, it means the modern number is also fake. The reason why fakery replaces a real number is because measuring the effects of force is impossible. It is impossible for physicists to separate elastic force from inelastic force—so much so that they conceal the problem and pretend that it is all inelastic force when stirring water. So where do physicists get five significant digits for a modern number? They relate to electrical energy, which eliminates the need to measure force. Electricity can heat water in a very precise way. But doing this only shifts the problem one step farther out of reach. Physicists then need to determine how much force it takes to create a volt of electricity. Doing so would be even more difficult than determining the force required to heat water, because there are additional complexities and inefficiencies in generating electricity. What it adds up to is that circular logic is being used defining kinetic energy in terms of electrical energy and defining electrical energy in terms of kinetic energy. This leaves out what scientists refer to as absolute values, which means referencing to something that actually exists in nature. Electrical and kinetic energy float at some arbitrary value. Physicists could have missed absolute values by several hundred percent. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, upon which global warming claims are based, shows about 20-40 times too much radiation given off at normal temperatures. That's 2,000-4,000% error. Joule supposedly proved Leibniz to be correct in the definition of kinetic energy, but comparing two alternatives for rate of change would be needed, while Joule only had one number. Glossing over this extremely obvious error, as still occurring to this day, shows a state of physics which is disgraceful. It is possible now days to apply simple math to rockets and show that the Leibniz definition of kinetic energy is wrong. I show the math on my web site. The misdefinition of energy means the modern number for Joule's constant (called the mechanical equivalent of heat—4.1868 N-m/cal) is a contrivance. With real measurements, the number would change as conditions change, since it does not properly represent kinetic energy. A perspective on physics fraud must consider relativity. Relativity is so far removed from developed knowledge, laws of nature and standards of science that it has its own unique purpose. It's purpose, as applied and rationalized, is to break down the rationality of science, so incompetents can dictate unaccountably drawing their claims from a darkness which cannot be questioned by outsiders. The starting points of relativity are not valid. One of the starting points is to have receiving points determine the velocity of light. The velocity is supposedly determined after the light has traveled. Effect becomes cause. There is never a validity in replacing cause with effect. Related to this starting point is the use of infinite reference frames for velocity of light. The purpose is to substitute reference frame for velocity, since light would not have definable energy, if it had infinite velocities. There has to be infinite velocities, because starting points and receiving points have infinite velocities. Crossing out velocity and replacing it with reference frame does not fix the problem. Another bit of shameless fakery filed under relativity is to replace gravity with a "fabric" of space-time, which does weird things that gravity doesn't do. A fabric is two dimensional; gravity is three dimensional. It exists in the volume of a sphere. Volumes are three dimensional. A recent example of blatant fraud is the claim to have measured gravity waves. Scientists have been talking about gravity waves for centuries, which is why billions of dollars were spent looking for them. A gravity wave was supposed to be something that creates the effect of gravity. All mass produces gravity in proportion to its size. But when the gravity waves were said to be detected a few months ago, they were something totally different. They are now supposedly something produced by acceleration. Acceleration is the result of gravity, not the source of gravity. It means cause and effect were reversed. The reason for this is because gravity is everywhere, and something unique had to be found. So two black holes colliding a thousand light years away were supposedly the key to the measurement, and their acceleration was supposedly unique, as if there were no acceleration anyplace else. All gravity is accelerating something including the moon and planets. Orbiting objects are being accelerated. So total fakery was used to goose up the glamor of physics. A bit of insanity that really jumps out is this: The big accomplishment was to find the presence of gravity waves from a thousand light years away, while gravity waves are everywhere, if they exist. This is the standard by which we are told carbon dioxide in the air is creating global warming. Heat production and transfer are the most common subjects in science including biology as well as physics. When real scientists hear that 400 parts per million of anything in the air is creating heat, they say it is a hoax. Heat doesn't work that way. Heat is a quantity of energy which cannot be created or destroyed, though it can be transformed from other sources of energy. As a definable quantity, it cannot be spread out without getting a lot colder. It's like ink in water—it dilutes. The term "heat trapping gas" is a scientific fraud. Heat cannot be trapped, because it is too dynamic. It flows into and out of the atmosphere in femto seconds. Heat constantly dissipates and radiates. The amount of heat entering from the sun during the day is the amount that leaves during the night. A miniscule amount is not going to get trapped while the rest radiates into space. The origins of global warming science are more corrupt than anyone imagined. Climatologists skipped over the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility. There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason. Climatologists admit that the CO2 in the air is about the same temperature as the air, as it would have to be. They are thereby implying that CO2 is a cold conduit for heat. There is no such thing as a cold conduit for heat, as thermal conductivity coefficients show. Climatologists use a so-called energy budget which shows 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth to be in the form of radiation. White hot metals could not easily emit 79% radiation under atmospheric conditions. Reducing the radiation would be reducing the claimed global warming. For a mechanism, climatologists used radiative transfer equations to supposedly show 3.7 watts per square meter 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 be reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. (Secondary effects supposedly triple the 1°C to 3°C.) It means climatologists started at the desired end point of 1°C and applied the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in the forward direction to the get the 3.7 w/m² attributed to radiative transfer equations. 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.
|