draw bridge  
Science Home
  fan belt  
         
Gary Novak Science Errors

 
How Physicists Got Global Warming Wrong and Almost Everything Else They Did Over the Past 172 years

 

The Historical Development of Science Fraud
 

It was science fraud, developed over more than a century, which resulted in social fantasies related to global warming, renewable energy, electric vehicles and self-driving.

The first evidence of a problem in physics showed up in 1686, when Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz published a paper titled

"A Brief Demonstration of the Memorable Error of Descartes and Others Concerning the Natural Law According to Which They Claim That the Same Quantity of Motion Is Always Conserved by God, a Law That They Use Incorrectly in Mechanical Problems."
The snarkiness of the title says Leibniz assumed he could not possibly be wrong. But he was wrong. His error was not in his analysis; it was in starting with the wrong premise.

The purpose was to determine the conserved quantity of motion, which is now called kinetic energy. Force and motion were being studied on pendulums, and it was found that both mass times velocity (mv) and mass times velocity squared (mv) were conserved quantities during elastic collisions. Conserved means the same amount is found after an event as before. The question was, what is conserved beyond elastic collisions. The test is to rearrange the component elements and see which produce the same totals, which is what Leibniz did. He found that he could rearrange the components of force times distance and always maintain the same amount of mass times velocity squared.

His error was in assuming that a combination of force times distance should be the starting point. What Leibniz missed is that he could have started with force times time and always conserved mass times velocity unsquared. His analysis didn't tell him which starting premise to use, and he chose the wrong alternative.

The issue was argued for 200 years and supposedly settled by James Joule in 1845 by stirring water in a wooden bucket to determine the amount of heat produced. Joule made claims of doing the impossible, such as taking care of environmental influences by doing an extra run, which showed that he contrived the result. But regardless, his experiment could not determine the correct definition of kinetic energy, because more than one point of measurement was needed and he only had one. Yet physicists pretend to this day to be verifying Joule's supposed proof of the definition of kinetic energy and improving the precision. The latest result says there are 4.1868 joules per calorie.

There is a second reason why such experiments cannot determine the definition of kinetic energy. In measuring the force used to stir water, the difference between elastic force and inelastic force cannot be determined. Only the elastic force can be measured, while it is the inelastic force which produces the heat.

So the first "memorable" point to be made is that physicists got a lot wrong in their analysis regardless of the definition of energy. Not knowing that more than one point of measurement is needed is getting too much wrong for the trust that is placed in physicists.

Clues to the misdefinition of energy show up wherever the equation is applied. The equation says kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared (KE = mv). Since nothing can move at velocity squared, the equation does not properly represent the motion of the mass.

In 1983, I sent letters on this to several physics departments pointing out the contradictions in rockets. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory sent back the basic rocket equations saying the equations balance, so there is no problem. It's not relevant whether the equations balance, but having those equations, I could use rockets as a replacement for gravity in the Leibniz type analysis and mathematically prove what the proper equation for defining kinetic energy should be. The result showed that Leibniz was wrong and Descartes was right. Kinetic energy equals mass times velocity unsquared, which is now called momentum. Kinetic energy is the same thing as momentum, while mv is nothing but a meaningless abstraction. My mathematical proof could be verified by a high school student who has studied physics and calculus. It is shown on my web site at www.nov83.com.

This error alone would corrupt about 90% of physics. But the very reason why the error exists is the reason why there has not been an iota of correct physics produced since Newton's laws, which were published in 1687. Physics is so abstract and hard to measure that physicists cannot meet the challenge. So they learned very early on to guess, contrive and round off corners. There is no actual science to physics. At most, some physicists are super engineers. There is no problem with engineering, as getting a functional result straightens out the procedures. Engineers use trial-and-error where the science leaves off until they get a functional result. This does not mean that the bubble chambers are not showing subatomic particles or the space telescopes are not observing actual phenomenon. It means the endless, incongruous physics applied to the subject matter is not science.

Skipping over Planck's constant, which could not be right without a correct definition of energy, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which shows 20-50 times too much radiation given off by matter at normal temperatures and the Michelson-Morley experiment which produced no result and never showed that it could, the manner in which global warming was handled is every bit as shameless and Joule's experiment.

Climatologists cannot explain a mechanism for global warming. Instead they use fake numbers, such as 3.7 watts per square meter to represent heat trapped in the atmosphere due to human activity. There are no square meters in the atmosphere. Climatologists convert the number into 1C by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant; but reversing that constant is not valid, because it only applies to surfaces.

There is no mechanism for greenhouse gases creating global warming, because heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere. Large amounts of heat move into and out of the atmosphere constantly, as temperatures change 20 degrees or more between day and night. Absorbed radiation is emitted in 83 femto seconds at an average wavelength of 25 microns, as all matter emits radiation constantly. The second law of thermodynamics says heat dissipates, all the time, everywhere, without exception. There cannot be a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Using terms such as "greenhouse effect" and "heat trapping gas" shows more ignorance by physicists. What greenhouses do is use glass or plastic to block air from moving. They keep out the weather with a physical barrier. The glass or plastic allows light to go through but not air currents. There is no such barrier in the atmosphere. So why use the term "greenhouse" for atmospheric effects?

Adding the term "trapping" with it emphasizes the same point. Greenhouses trap air inside using glass or plastic. There is no barrier to trap anything in the atmosphere. The terms "greenhouse gas" and "heat trapping gas" are not analogies to anything that happens in the atmosphere. So why use such terms? A lot of scientists don't know there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. They were so sure that carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere that they assumed the result must be similar to a greenhouse.

You don't think scientists can be that wrong? Some of them have been claiming that nothing can heat the atmosphere but greenhouse gases and they heated the atmosphere 33C. Those scientists missed the conduction, convection and evaporation that puts most heat into the atmosphere. Scientists who miss such simple facts do not understand science. They just move words around.

On greenhouse gases, Wikipedia states, "Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be about -18C (0F), rather than the present average of 15C (59F)."
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) Wikipedia attributes all of the temperature increase caused by the atmosphere (33C) to greenhouse gases and none to conduction, convection and evaporation.


Historical Papers: Energy: Historical Development of the Concept. 1975. R.B. Lindsay.

How Could All Those Scientists Be Wrong?

 

         
 
Home Page
  
Science Errors
 
Sociology of Corruption
Home Page
 
Science Errors
 
Sociology of Corruption