Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".
Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.
The basis on which I deny his experiment is that he concludes that heat can flow from cold to warm with no external work, and from this he thinks he discovers perpetual motion. How many times to I have to say that before the idiocy penetrates your skull?you have both stated that you disbelieve the atmospheric thermal effect can exist because the temperature in a column of air would reach equilibrium and that the ideal gas laws describe only a temporary effect....experimentation proves otherwise...upon what basis do you now deny an atmospheric thermal effect?
So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a cold object to a hot object and shows an invention of perpetual motion? It's on page 16.
The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump
A lot of people consider astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to be the smartest man in the world. His research and theories have explained some of the deepest mysteries of time and space.
So it’s understandable why, on Tuesday, people sort of freaked out when Hawking said there was one thing he could not explain: The popularity of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
“I can’t,” Hawking responded, when asked to explain Trump’s rise as part of an exclusive interview with British news station ITV News. “He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”
But here’s the thing: in that same interview, Hawking also said he didn’t believe Trump was the greatest threat facing America, or even the world. The greatest threat, he said, is human-caused climate change.
“A more immediate danger is runaway climate change,” Hawking said. “A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice-caps, and cause a release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump
Well compared to a numb nuts Right winger like you who the fuck is Hawkins other than a Famous Scientist whereas you are an anonymous loser out of your depth among K Garden children LOl[
LOL. Hawking is so far out of his depth here.
Losah weak Bimbo post...another anonymous genius who knows more than ScienceAnd you remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".
Deny deny deny....call me all the names you like...the fact remains that you are having a heaping helping of humble pie....gravity does in fact continuously create heat at the bottom of a column of air and repeatable experimentation proves it.
Well compared to a numb buts Right winger like you who the fuck is Hawkins other than a Famous Scientist whereas you are an anonymous loser out of your depth among K Garden children LOl[
LOL. Hawking is so far out of his depth here.
you are a total loser...Governments come to Hawkins to ask his opinion ...no one come to you to ask shit LOL
Loser..out of your depth..
Stephen Hawking awarded largest prize in all of science
Its unimaginable an asshole "CrusaderFrank" who owes points on the IQ test talking smack about Hawkins
Losah weak Bimbo post...another anonymous genius who knbows more than ScienceAnd you remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".
Deny deny deny....call me all the names you like...the fact remains that you are having a heaping helping of humble pie....gravity does in fact continuously create heat at the bottom of a column of air and repeatable experimentation proves it.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
"CrusaderFrank" who owes points on the IQ test
First time I heard that one. I think that can be said for a lot of people here whose opinions on science are worth less than the effluvium from a loose rectal sphincter.
Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.
Look at page 16. The guy actually claims that his experiment shows heat can spontaneously move from a cold reservoir to a hot one. And the guy claims to have invented perpetual motion. And you believe the guy. This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard from you.
The basis on which I deny his experiment is that he concludes that heat can flow from cold to warm with no external work, and from this he thinks he discovers perpetual motion. How many times to I have to say that before the idiocy penetrates your skull?you have both stated that you disbelieve the atmospheric thermal effect can exist because the temperature in a column of air would reach equilibrium and that the ideal gas laws describe only a temporary effect....experimentation proves otherwise...upon what basis do you now deny an atmospheric thermal effect?
Two points here. First, having researched the man, I didn't find Graeff quoted anywhere, much less his experiment actually repeated, and his results confirmed. "Repeatable" isn't proof. Repeating it, and confirming the findings is. And yet, nobody saw grounds to try, curiously enough, isn't it? After all, we're standing before a "scientific" breakthrough exceeding Einstein and Darwin combined.
His conclusions are: Cold objects can spontaneously warm up hot objects, perpetual motion is a given. Also water gets hotter the deeper you go.You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.
In scientific circles repeatable means a totally different group with a similar but different methodology. That is important because you really need to eliminate systemic biases in the apparatus. It doesn't work if the same guy repeats the same experiment with the same apparatus.Two points here. First, having researched the man, I didn't find Graeff quoted anywhere, much less his experiment actually repeated, and his results confirmed. "Repeatable" isn't proof. Repeating it, and confirming the findings is. And yet, nobody saw grounds to try, curiously enough, isn't it? After all, we're standing before a "scientific" breakthrough exceeding Einstein and Darwin combined.
It is hard to say exactly where he went wrong. He referenced his website for apparatus details. It gave a curt "Not Authorized to View This Page". However I can guess at his problems. I once worked with thermocouples.Second, and assuming that Mr. Graeff is one of a myriad of crackpots who believed they invented a perpetual motion, can you identify where in his paper his experiment / calculations went wrong? He found a temperature gradient of -0.04K/m for water. Meaning, simply assuming a surface temperature of 0°C, the oceans should be all at boiling temperature at a depth of 2,500 meters. I believe, no one ever found that.
Distraction is one of his major games.Whatever, what we're seeing is Same Shit, Different Day, and yet another distracting side-show with no relevance whatsoever.
That's right. It would violate the conservation of energy. You could make a machine which turns heat into energy, but the source would cool as and you would have to resupply the heat energy. Of course that is the way steam engines and Stirling engines work.So, it appears, gravity doesn't accelerate molecules in fluids and gasses on their path downward in such a way that you can continually extract energy, correct?
Frank, here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.
Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change
"Myth: Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.
Fact: Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.
"
His conclusions are: Cold objects can spontaneously warm up hot objects, perpetual motion is a given. Also water gets hotter the deeper you go.You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.
