This is an example of the reasoning behind oppressing skeptic/critical opinion.

# Författare: lifeisthermal

Over at the religious page scienceofdoom.com you can find this post where the priest is preaching about how he misunderstands science so badly that he disproves his own theory. I am going to answer his post here, because I like freedom of speech, and he doesn´t, which he admits in the post.

He starts with blabbing about the radiative transfer formula for radiation emitted at the surface and how it passes through the atmosphere:

I_{λ}(0) = I_{λ}(τ_{m})e^{-τm} + ∫ B_{λ}(T)e^{-τ} dτ

He explains it like this:

”The intensity at the top of atmosphere equals.. The surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere, plus.. The sum of all the contributions of atmospheric radiation – each contribution attenuated by the transmittance from that location to the top of atmosphere.”

This is all fine. But the problem is he thinks he has calculated a greenhouse effect, even though he himself writes ”attenuation”. He must not know what that means.

He then shows this spectrum and points out how good the match is:

And he is correct. It is a beautiful calculation with accuracy that almost gives you goosebumps. Now comes the funny part, he thinks it is a spectrum that proves his theory!!!

Look at the left scale, it says: Intensity+units. This is intensity of heat, and the higher up the graph goes, the higher the intensity(hotter)

Now look at the action of co2 in wavelengths 20-13. What happens to the intensity?

A deep drop in intensity, that is what happens. This means that the action of co2 in the atmosphere, is to decrease intensity/heat emission. That is not a greenhouse effect, that is the effect you get when you spray dry ice(co2) in air. It cools.

But the greenhouse-believer think that heat can hide, so they claim that the invisible ghost-heat stays in the system and accumulates.

Non-religious people know from logic that dry ice doesn´t make hot surfaces hotter, just colder.

Then we get this nice little picture, adding to the display of ignorance.

The picture shows, and the text describes, how heat transfers to surroundings of a body. What we know is that the sb-law tells us that at equal temperature there is no transfer of heat between surroundings and solid. When discussing gh-theory, the defenders like to add ”net”, which is pathetic, because the sb-law only calculates heat transfer. Nothing changes from ”net”, because ”net” is heat. The rest is not heat and cannot heat anything.

Do you notice anything missing in the picture? Yeah, a sun. Another proof of ignorance delivered by the priest himself.

Again, we know that at equal temperature there is NO transfer of heat. 0.

In the gh-theory there is the idea that if one body is at lower temperature, it starts to transfer the negative difference, which is not ”net” and therefore not heat.

Anyone with knowledge about heat transfer and thermodynamics knows that only work and heat can increase temperature. Co2 is not producing heat, even greenhouse believers know this. Co2 absorbs heat. The question is then, does co2 do work on the system? Of course not.

Knowing this, can co2 raise the temperature of it´s own heat source? Absolutely not!

Kids understand this, but not blanket-people.

This van der Waals fluid relationship to heat flow turned out to be really interesting.

The reduced form of the equation of state for any fluid is:

Adding the stefan-boltzmann and exchanging T for T^4 on the right side gives, with T^4=TSI:

Apparently, light can, and maybe should, be treated like a form of fluid. This of course gives my brain some interesting ideas about space and what fills the vacuum, and how massive bodies is affected by it. I´ll probably get back to that in another post.

Isn´t this a funny coincidence:

Look at the right graph in each figure, the left figure is the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, and the right picture is a van der waals fluid where the terms of stability is broken. The model of the fluid in the right picture is the exact same function that determines the gradient in the atmospheric fluid.

It is the part of the graph holding the points M to F that is violating the terms for stability, it is said to be a region where other processes supersedes the isotherm. So, my interpretation of the temperature gradient show that the heat flow in the atmosphere behaves like a van der Waal fluid with the action of gravity included.

There has been some talk about perfect fluid in the universe, in relation to dark matter and other problems. Could it be that heat/radiation is what has the behaviour of a fluid? It looks like that on earth anyway.

In any case, the similarity between the heat flow behaviour and the principles that describe vdW-fluids, indicates that there is something else at work than a greenhouse effect.

If we observed a body which absorbed all light as well as emitted it, it would be an observation of two exactly equal oppositional flows, which means a cancellation of energy? Like how a black hole cancels out all light at the horizon. A body which absorbs and emits all light would appear like a black hole. If emission equals the flow of energy from the source(s), we get a potential of -1 from flow in opposite direction.

I try to find the relevance in this;

”Now, consider rerunning the simulation, but with a slightly different longwavelength cloud forcing. Again, if we run it long enough, it will settle to an equilibrium state, in which the fluxes balance, and the temperature is constant. However, since the longwavelength cloud forcing is different, some of the other fluxes will also be different, and the equilibrium temperature will, consequently, also be different. There will be an offset, compared to the first simulation, but it won’t grow with time simply because one simulation had a different longwavelength cloud forcing compared to the other”

I cannot find this offset in the heat transfer equations. But there is a time-dependent drop in temperature from dropping the emissive power of a heat absorber, like what happens when increasing the amount co2. It shows that without increasing the power of the heat source, the only effect is dropping temperature of the system.

I keep on pointing out the problems of gh-theory;

”If we then increase atmospheric CO_{2}, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO_{2} was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. **Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance.** As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO_{2} is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm^{-2}.”

The bold part is at the core of the problem. This is a completely backwards statement, a demonstration of the lack of understanding in thermodynamic relationships. ”The outgoing flux” is the ”flux density” which is equal to the emissive power of the body via T^4. A body does not have any possible way to compensate for a dropping flux density from any part of the system, if there is not an increasing power density from the heat source. It just simply drops in temperature in that part, and the source must increase the transfer rate to keep a steady state. Since heat flow from both the sun and the internal generation is constant, there can not be any increasing temperature anywhere.

You cannot ”block” heat by increasing the rate of heat transfer via dropping temperature of the absorber, that is the opposite of ”blocking heat”,

One can only ask these people to study heat transfer and heat engines carefully. Only when they understand that, they will know why they are wrong.

I read something amazing:

”If we then increase atmospheric CO_{2}, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO_{2} was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) **this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler** and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO_{2} is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm^{-2}.”

You see there?

He actually claims that emission at a lower temperature causes higher temperature in a solid body at higher temperature. He says that: carbon dioxide causes emission at lower temperature, and it causes heating.

Heating is always caused by emission at higher temperature. All laws of thermodynamics are broken with this reasoning.

*Shell theorem*

* *

*In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.*

*Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem ^{[1]} and stated that:*

*A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.**If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.*

**A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass. This can be seen as follows: take a point within such a sphere, at a distance r {\displaystyle r} from the centre of the sphere. Then you can ignore all the shells of greater radius, according to the shell theorem.** So, the remaining mass is proportional to , and the gravitational force exerted on it is proportional to , so to , so is linear in r .

*These results were important to Newton’s analysis of planetary motion; they are not immediately obvious, but they can be proven with calculus. (Alternatively, Gauss’s law for gravity offers a much simpler way to prove the same results.)*

*In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law. The derivations below focus on gravity, but the results can easily be generalized to the electrostatic force. Moreover, the results can be generalized to the case of general ellipsoidal bodies. ^{[2]}*

The addition of the volume to the shell is how I built my toy-model. It connects heat flow and gravity exactly. The bold text is an analogy of the heat current and the temperature gradient. The gravitational force acts exactly balanced towards the source of heat flow, which is the source of gravity. The force declines at a rate equal to the emissive power of heat. Gravitational energy seems to be exactly equal but acts in opposite direction to heat, which flows towards the ultimate heat sink in the vacuum.

If units of gravity are dimensioned as heat flow in a volume, their behaviour is identical.

Gravity then doesn´t depend on mass, it is equal to heat flow. Their center is ironically the same.

*”If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”*

I replace ”no net gravitational force” with gravity and heat flow =0 in a spherical non interacting cavity. It also happens to be mass in the cavity, but it seems to make no difference.

I just fill out the unknown with the simplest ideal model of thermodynamic heat engines.

I added nothing, I used only geometry and proven thermodynamic principles. I introduce nothing new. It is built entirely on observation. The model produced solutions from the start.

*In science, an effective theory is a scientific theory which proposes to describe a certain set of observations, but explicitly without the claim or implication that the mechanism employed in the theory has a direct counterpart in the actual causes of the observed phenomena to which the theory is fitted. I.e. the theory proposes to model a certain effect, without proposing to adequately model any of the causes which contribute to the effect.*

*Thus, an effective field theory is a theory which describes phenomena in solid-state physics”*

I use an approach where I exclude time when I try to define physical relationships. The reason is that I want to understand the state I am observing. By excluding time I limit reality to what happens in the present, right now. The present consists of points of information about the forces and the energy that flows in the system, time tells us about the effects that is the result of the instantaneous state

Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy in a volume of mass. The kinetic energy is a product of thermal energy flowing through mass. A measure of temperature is a measure of the flow of heat in a point, to the surroundings. In relation to the surroundings, temperature is also a measure of transfer. Heat flows from mass at a temperature, with the power depending only on the emissive power which we measure as temperature. That is confirmed by the draper point in the observed fact that emission/heat flow observed as glow from a body of any solid, **depend only on the temperature.
**

By eliminating time I stack transfer of heat on top of emissive power in the instantaneous state, and by doing so everything adds up.

The transfer of energy from a hotter temperature is determined by the emission from the receiver, so there is no action on a distance. The rate of transfer from the sun is determined by the emission of heat from the earth as it absorbs from a constant field. When earth rise in temperature, less solar heat is absorbed from transfer from the sun. The system is in a vacuum so we know this is true.

I have been thinking about photons. Photons are said to be both waves and particles that exist outside mass. How can we know that?

Any measurement involves some form of matter, a device, an eye, a fluid, a solid…etc. Photons are only observed as some form of interaction between mass and the flow of energy in the surrounding field. No one has observed a photon outside of mass, like in space. Because a measurement in vacuum would require an introduction of mass by the instrument, and where there is mass there is no vacuum.

When a photon leaves the sun and enters vacuum it is unaffected by space and time until it encounters mass. This is equal to not exist in space and time. As a point of energy, photons arrive at a location where there is mass. When absorbed, the photon is destroyed when entering the mass/matter. This is where we can measure and observe, inside mass at the boundary. When it is destroyed it turns into heat/kinetic energy, a kind of micro-work. The heat then expands in three dimensions.

The difference between the point of energy entering the space-time of mass, and the expansion in the three-dimensional volume, is time. The size of expansion is determined by the intensity of the point-energy and the amount of time passed since the destruction of the photon. If the state of the treedimensional volume in relation to the point-energy signal is only time, doesn´t that mean that we have 1 dimension of power signal and three dimensions of time? Doesn´t that mean that any volume of mass at a temperature is threedimensional time expansion of points of photon energy?

That would mean space=time and not space+time. Originating in points of energy.

But I don´t know what to make of the vacuum. We have no direct information about it. Until I understand it I consider it as nothing. An assumption based on the relationship to the photon-energy travelling in the vacuum. That relationship is non-existing, nothing.

Temperature is a measure of flowing points of energy, different points of emissive power/kinetic energy. They are independent of space-time and mass. They only depend on the flow of energy, which is itself. Three dimensions of mass/time expands like ripples. Everything we observe are effects from the past, the expansion in time. Except the observation of temperature, where we measure the present state in a point and it includes all transfers of energy from and to the surroundings.

All flows of energy are simultaneously balanced on earth, because removing time makes everything add up. I found it a bit hard to accept at first, that mass can be regarded as non-interacting on the heat flow. But the draper point says just that: emission from a solid depends only on the internal state measured as the temperature 798K(I know, there are exceptions, but they are irrelevant). The state of mass is determined by the heat flowing through a body while the heat flow depends on nothing.

But, what I write in this post is irrelevant. Only the numbers are relevant. Effective theory? I think instantaneous is more suitable. Or something. Blah, blah.

/Lit