draw bridge  
Science Home
  fan belt  
           

 

 

Science Errors

How Deterioration of Science

Left Wreckage and Ruin
 

By Gary Novak

Summary

(Historical Perspective)

The first century of physics got off to a good start, as René Descartes summarized early results with pendulums and motion (ca 1635) saying, there is a fixed amount of motion in the universe, because it is always conserved through interactions. By motion, he meant the combination of mass and velocity. In 1686, Gottfried Leibniz said Descartes was wrong; It is not the combination of mass and velocity that is conserved but mass times velocity squared. The Leibniz view became the definition of kinetic energy. There has not been an iota of correct physics since then beyond Newton's laws produced in 1687.

James Joule supposedly proved Leibniz correct in 1845 by stirring water in a wooden bucket to determine how much heat is produced from force and motion. So little heat is produced in stirring water that it would have disappeared into the environment as fast as he created it. He said he took care of environmental effects by doing an extra run, which of course was absurd. Physicists were trying to do such an experiment and failing for numerous reasons. Joule claimed to solve the problems which they could not solve, while all he did was run to a complicit publisher with nonscientific contrivances.

Yet, Joule was only off by three parts per thousand from the modern number. Supposedly, the number is 4.1868 Newton-meters per calorie, while Joule said it was 4.2. Joule's supposed precision only shows that the modern number is also fake. The reason why fakery replaces a real number is because measuring the effects of force is impossible. Direct measurement of force now days might produce two or three significant digits, but there is a theoretical problem which cannot be solved. 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.

Here's the nature of the problem: If you row a boat by pulling on the oars very hard, about 80% of the force might be elastic and move the boat, while the other 20% is inelastic and heats the water. But if you pull the oars very slowly, it might be the opposite—20% elastic force and 80% inelastic force. What the real ratio is each time is impossible to determine.

These types of problems exist in all physics. As a result, physicists acquired the habit of faking their results. They seem to assume that they can determine the truth through intuition, and it would be better to fudge in a representation of what they assume than to allow obstacles to stand in the way of progress. One of the problems is that only incompetent fools think that way, and they are always wrong about their intuitions. Yet they prevailed in physics by shoving out or silencing critics through force in place of rationality.

Joule's measurement supposedly proved that Leibniz was right in defining kinetic energy in terms of mass times velocity squared. But to tell the difference between the two alternatives, rates of change have to be measured while components vary. Joule only had a single point of measurement, which could not differentiate between the alternatives. There is no clue in physics that Joule did not determine what kinetic energy is.

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 implicitly adds up to (Physics is too dark to pin such things down.) 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.

It's now possible to prove that physicists picked the wrong alternative in defining kinetic energy. Rockets can be used to add energy to mass and compare the dynamics using the same logic that Leibniz used and show that Leibniz was wrong. Burn time for a constant powered rocket is proportional to the energy it used. Therefore, burn time for a rocket can be compared for various masses in motion to show their relative amounts of energy. The rocket equations are quite rudimentary and easy to apply to the task. Proving that kinetic energy is misdefined proves that physicists contrived the claimed 4.1868 Newton-meters per calorie, because there is no consistent number with a false definition of kinetic energy. Whenever conditions change, a different number would result. Joule would not have used similar conditions to any modern measurement.

Einstein paralleled the false definition of kinetic energy in his equation, E=mc². c squared is the velocity of light squared. Squaring any velocity is ridiculous, since nothing can move at velocity squared. There was no reason for Einstein to square the velocity of light besides paralleling the velocity squared in the supposed definition of kinetic energy.

One of the things it means is there is no significant energy in hydrogen fusion. Physicists expect a lot of energy from fusion, because they use Einstein's equation to calculate it. Squaring the velocity of light produces a very large number for resulting energy. Unsquare the velocity of light, and there is next to none. Recent laser tests have found no significant energy in fusion, while the engineering worked flawlessly. Atom smashers keep getting larger in the attempt to get energy out of hydrogen fusion without success.

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.

Home Page