On the failure of alarmism!!!

[wirebender]

Already been done by the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society made up of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now that has been posted here many times, yet you continue your stupid flap-yap. The fact is you are either incapable of understanding basic science, or you are totally out of touch with reality. A combination of both, more than likely.

I keep asking which part of that you believe constitutes proof of anything rocks. You never answer because clearly, you don't have any sort of real handle on what is said there. You don't understand it but I guess it looks like proof of some sort to you. So again, which part of that link do you believe constitutes proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat or that CO2 can radiated downward and is therefore exempt from field vector calculus? Which part of that link proves anyting rocks. It is assumption after assumption after assumption.

It is because I understand the science that I recognize your "source" as just so much talk with no hint of any sort of proof.

 

[wirebender]

My, postitive proof of what a stupid ass you truly are. Joseph Fourier was a political head? Tyndall was a political head? How about Svante Arnnhenius? How about the multitude of geologists that have made the observations concerning the retreat of glaciers?

Quaint 19th century science that has been debunked as proof rocks? Really?

And as to observations of retreating glaciers, what is that proof of other than that some glaciers are retreating?

Bent there is no science that supports your stupidity, period. Not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University. As I have pointed out innumberable times.

I have supported my claims and to date, no one has pointed out any error on my part.

 

[Bigfoot]

My, postitive proof of what a stupid ass you truly are. Joseph Fourier was a political head? Tyndall was a political head? How about Svante Arnnhenius? How about the multitude of geologists that have made the observations concerning the retreat of glaciers?

Quaint 19th century science that has been debunked as proof rocks? Really?

And as to observations of retreating glaciers, what is that proof of other than that some glaciers are retreating?

Bent there is no science that supports your stupidity, period. Not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University. As I have pointed out innumberable times.

I have supported my claims and to date, no one has pointed out any error on my part.

I have found that Old Rocks has nothing of value to offer the discussions and always resorts to childlike behavior becuase of it. He is not worth bothering with except for a slight bit of entertainment value. I bet that in person he is a real "cupcake" that would not dare utter a childish insult.

 

[wirebender]

I have found that Old Rocks has nothing of value to offer the discussions and always resorts to childlike behavior becuase of it. He is not worth bothering with except for a slight bit of entertainment value. I bet that in person he is a real "cupcake" that would not dare utter a childish insult.

There are always a couple who have absolutely nothing but cut and paste and then are unable to even speak to what they cut and paste. Old rocks is one of those. Not even much entertainment value there. His claim of being a member of mensa was entertaining. Imagine him scoring in the 98th percentile on a test that specifically targets deductive reasoning skills and logic when he so utterly fails to exhibit either in his writing.

And yeah, I suppose he isn't the sort to speak his mind in public. Lots of suppressed anger that leads to the sort of gratuitous namecalling that he so typically engages in. Of course, there is a lot of that on the internet. A while back I read a paper in one psych journal or the other about the sorts of issues people have in actual life that leads them to be unable to rationally converse on the internet without resorting to name calling.

 

[konradv]

I have found that Old Rocks has nothing of value to offer the discussions and always resorts to childlike behavior becuase of it. He is not worth bothering with except for a slight bit of entertainment value. I bet that in person he is a real "cupcake" that would not dare utter a childish insult.

There are always a couple who have absolutely nothing but cut and paste and then are unable to even speak to what they cut and paste. Old rocks is one of those. Not even much entertainment value there. His claim of being a member of mensa was entertaining. Imagine him scoring in the 98th percentile on a test that specifically targets deductive reasoning skills and logic when he so utterly fails to exhibit either in his writing.

And yeah, I suppose he isn't the sort to speak his mind in public. Lots of suppressed anger that leads to the sort of gratuitous namecalling that he so typically engages in. Of course, there is a lot of that on the internet. A while back I read a paper in one psych journal or the other about the sorts of issues people have in actual life that leads them to be unable to rationally converse on the internet without resorting to name calling.

Whatever Old Rocks posting style may be, at least he doesn't try to make us swallow new physical principles concocted out of thin air, like you do. Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?!

 

[wirebender]

Whatever Old Rocks posting style may be, at least he doesn't try to make us swallow new physical principles concocted out of thin air, like you do.

Which physical principle do you believe I have concocted out of thin air. Name it, or them, and I will be happy to refer you to texts on physics or chemistry that describe any principle I use in detail.

Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?!

Poor konradv. Do you really believe that EM field vectors are fictions? If you don't believe in them, then it becomes obvious why you can't even begin to understand how they work or why you can see the moon during the daylight hours. Do you believe the light and IR reflected by the moon, a sphere with no atmosphere is somehow "cooler" than IR radiated by the earth? You shouldn't laugh at mathematical principles that you don't understand, it just makes you look stupid.

 

[konradv]

Whatever Old Rocks posting style may be, at least he doesn't try to make us swallow new physical principles concocted out of thin air, like you do.

Which physical principle do you believe I have concocted out of thin air. Name it, or them, and I will be happy to refer you to texts on physics or chemistry that describe any principle I use in detail.

Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?!

Poor konradv. Do you really believe that EM field vectors are fictions? If you don't believe in them, then it becomes obvious why you can't even begin to understand how they work or why you can see the moon during the daylight hours. Do you believe the light and IR reflected by the moon, a sphere with no atmosphere is somehow "cooler" than IR radiated by the earth? You shouldn't laugh at mathematical principles that you don't understand, it just makes you look stupid.

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true? Why don't you ever answer the question? If it's good enough for a photon leaving earth, why not for those leaving the moon? Quit tap-dancing around the issue and explain it.

 

[gslack]

Whatever Old Rocks posting style may be, at least he doesn't try to make us swallow new physical principles concocted out of thin air, like you do.

Which physical principle do you believe I have concocted out of thin air. Name it, or them, and I will be happy to refer you to texts on physics or chemistry that describe any principle I use in detail.

Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?!

Poor konradv. Do you really believe that EM field vectors are fictions? If you don't believe in them, then it becomes obvious why you can't even begin to understand how they work or why you can see the moon during the daylight hours. Do you believe the light and IR reflected by the moon, a sphere with no atmosphere is somehow "cooler" than IR radiated by the earth? You shouldn't laugh at mathematical principles that you don't understand, it just makes you look stupid.

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true? Why don't you ever answer the question? If it's good enough for a photon leaving earth, why not for those leaving the moon? Quit tap-dancing around the issue and explain it.

WOW! you really don't know anything about this subject do you? My god boy, stop making a fool of yourself. EM Vectors... THink! EM... USE YOUR FREAKING HEAD MAN!

Here some reading for you junior....

Quantization of the electromagnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

What are Subtle Energy Fields?

and

Subject: EM - Vectors, Tensors, Matrices - CUED Publications Database

and

IEEE Xplore - Sign In


Now every single one of those links have something to do with the term you are trying to call "principles concocted out of thin-air"...

Now shut up junior.. Seriously you are an idiot and not even sharp enough to check on things you do not understand BEFORE running your mouth... Its one thing to not know something, but its an entirely different thing to call it made up because of your own ignorance... Grow up man, your juvenile BS is old now...

 

[IanC]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

talking down to konradv in that way is no better than the climate scientists whose only defence of their shoddy work is to hide the details and proclaim that anyone who disagrees isnt smart enough to understand. bullshit is wrong no matter which side it comes from.

 

[westwall]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

talking down to konradv in that way is no better than the climate scientists whose only defence of their shoddy work is to hide the details and proclaim that anyone who disagrees isnt smart enough to understand. bullshit is wrong no matter which side it comes from.

wirebenders fundamental application of basic physics is however correct. I am still reviewing his claims about EM waves etc. It takes a while to find credible unbiased sources. As far as konrad goes he has exhibited a unwillingness to educate himself on even the basics. He is unable to ask even a coherent question the vast majority o the time.
If konrad were a teenager that would be acceptable. As he is not a teenager there is no excuse.

 

[wirebender]

Why can I see the moon in the daytime, If your EM vector "theory" is true? Why don't you ever answer the question? If it's good enough for a photon leaving earth, why not for those leaving the moon? Quit tap-dancing around the issue and explain it.

I have konradv. At least twice. You keep asking the same questions over and over as if the answer might change if you ask enough times.

 

[wirebender]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

Still waiting for you to point out any error at all on my part Ian. I described the physical laws that I was using and did the math. The answer I arrived at is what it is whether you like it or not. If you can show me some error on my part, by all means step up and show it. It isn't as if I am simply making statements out of the blue. I performed the calculations out where anyone could see and point out errors. This isn't the only place that I have argued my position and, to date, no one has pointed out an error on my part.

Your claims that my arguments are not falsifiable are ludicrous. If I am not misapplying any physical law and my math is correct, then of course nothing there can be falisified but if I am operating on some unphysical principle, then by all means point it out.

Simply complaining that I am making "absurd proclamations" when you are completely unable to point to, and prove any error on my part just makes you look silly.

 

[gslack]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

talking down to konradv in that way is no better than the climate scientists whose only defence of their shoddy work is to hide the details and proclaim that anyone who disagrees isnt smart enough to understand. bullshit is wrong no matter which side it comes from.

I talk to kornhole exactly the way he talks to everyone else who disagrees with AGW theory. It is in the very least fair and I feel not only fitting but well deserved. He comes into a thread and insults people with a single line, and does not even care to check his own facts BEFORE he does so. He does this incessantly, and his manner, behavior and inability to follow a thread points to the fact he is either very immature or a teenager trying to play big in a web forum. I treat him exactly the way he deserves...

What the links were posted for was to address kornholes claim that he pulled the term out of thin air. That is entirely false, and that was the point I was making. Again this is standard fair for kornhole and I for one am tired of the warmers constantly dismissing any science not of their camp, especially when they flat lie or are ignorant of the terms they use.

Frankly wirebender made no claim in that sentence. He asked oldsocks to point to where in his link it shows proof that CO2 traps and retains heat. Then what part shows that IF CO2 does in fact retain and trap heat, makes it immune to the EM vector Calculus that would prevent such an occurrence (in quantum theory).

I can understand enough quantum mechanics to know that it has a lot of holes. And special rules that do not apply anywhere else. We do not understand it, and even the experts concede the ability for even themselves to understand it is limited to a per application basis. In other words they get enough to do a certain task, and thats about it. So my ability to correct his assertions on the vector calculus is limited and my desire to try is even more limited.

That being said, the point I made and the point wirebender made still remains. Oldsocks has no ability to understand half of what he posts here, and cannot grasp anything beyond what the green blogs he posts from tell him. And his little pal kornhole has half his ability to grasp it and less than that of his ability to follow a topic or conversations. Kronholes claim he made up the terms is flat out wrong. And that is what I was pointing out...

 

[konradv]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

Still waiting for you to point out any error at all on my part Ian. I described the physical laws that I was using and did the math. The answer I arrived at is what it is whether you like it or not. If you can show me some error on my part, by all means step up and show it. It isn't as if I am simply making statements out of the blue. I performed the calculations out where anyone could see and point out errors. This isn't the only place that I have argued my position and, to date, no one has pointed out an error on my part.

Your claims that my arguments are not falsifiable are ludicrous. If I am not misapplying any physical law and my math is correct, then of course nothing there can be falisified but if I am operating on some unphysical principle, then by all means point it out.

Simply complaining that I am making "absurd proclamations" when you are completely unable to point to, and prove any error on my part just makes you look silly.

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

 

[gslack]

none of those links even hint at wirebender's absurd proclamations. esoteric physics of string theory that cant even be measured are not stopping the spontaneous emission of IR photons in random directions from energetic molecules in the atmosphere.

Still waiting for you to point out any error at all on my part Ian. I described the physical laws that I was using and did the math. The answer I arrived at is what it is whether you like it or not. If you can show me some error on my part, by all means step up and show it. It isn't as if I am simply making statements out of the blue. I performed the calculations out where anyone could see and point out errors. This isn't the only place that I have argued my position and, to date, no one has pointed out an error on my part.

Your claims that my arguments are not falsifiable are ludicrous. If I am not misapplying any physical law and my math is correct, then of course nothing there can be falisified but if I am operating on some unphysical principle, then by all means point it out.

Simply complaining that I am making "absurd proclamations" when you are completely unable to point to, and prove any error on my part just makes you look silly.

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

Ok I am going to humor your silly juvenile ass this once more then I am done so pay attention junior!

First there is the factor that the moon orbits the earth.. And here is a nice graphic to show how that works...

And here is a very nice explanation ...

Why Do We See the Moon in Daylight? | Space.com

Two things contribute to the moon being visible in daylight. First, it is bright enough that its light penetrates the scattered blue light of the sky. If you're looking at exactly the right spot with a telescope, you can also see the planets Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter in daylight, plus a few of the brightest stars (though few casual observers can actually pull this off). Secondly, the moon must be high enough in the sky to be visible.

Because of the Earth's rotation, the moon is above the horizon roughly 12 hours out of every 24. Since those 12 hours almost never coincide with the roughly 12 hours of daylight in every 24 hours, the possible window for observing the moon in daylight averages about 6 hours a day.

Now the link will get you through the why part.. Now onto the how part...

http://apol.mst.edu/documents/WavesT.pdf

Now that can in the very least give an explanation of how an EM vector field is a real thing and it applies in reality. Thats the real world not the fantasy you live in tool... Want to disprove his claim? Good here is the equations on that PDF I linked to. SO get to it junior...

from that PDF file...

The movement of energy may be characterized by the wavelength in vacuum l, frequency f =
w/2p, or quantum energy. The wavelength and frequency are related through the wave
equation as l f = c = speed of light in vacuum. The quantum energy Eq = hf where h is
Planck’s constant. (See Constants and Units for values of constants). Divisions of the
electromagnetic spectrum include the following and are illustrated in Figure 1.
Radio Frequency (RF) - electromagnetic radiation band with frequencies between
about 10 kHz and 300,000 Mhz, used in numerous communication technologies.
Shortwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 200 meters and 20
meters; includes the middle bands of radio frequencies.
Microwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 1 meters and 1
millimeters; includes the upper bands of radio frequencies.
Light - electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared bands or optical
range with wavelengths between about 1 nm and 105 nm.
X-rays - electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between about 10 nm and 0.01
nm; usually described as high-energy photons.

LOL, looks like fun what till you see the equations involved....

 

[konradv]

Still waiting for you to point out any error at all on my part Ian. I described the physical laws that I was using and did the math. The answer I arrived at is what it is whether you like it or not. If you can show me some error on my part, by all means step up and show it. It isn't as if I am simply making statements out of the blue. I performed the calculations out where anyone could see and point out errors. This isn't the only place that I have argued my position and, to date, no one has pointed out an error on my part.

Your claims that my arguments are not falsifiable are ludicrous. If I am not misapplying any physical law and my math is correct, then of course nothing there can be falisified but if I am operating on some unphysical principle, then by all means point it out.

Simply complaining that I am making "absurd proclamations" when you are completely unable to point to, and prove any error on my part just makes you look silly.

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

Ok I am going to humor your silly juvenile ass this once more then I am done so pay attention junior!

First there is the factor that the moon orbits the earth.. And here is a nice graphic to show how that works...

And here is a very nice explanation ...

Why Do We See the Moon in Daylight? | Space.com

Two things contribute to the moon being visible in daylight. First, it is bright enough that its light penetrates the scattered blue light of the sky. If you're looking at exactly the right spot with a telescope, you can also see the planets Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter in daylight, plus a few of the brightest stars (though few casual observers can actually pull this off). Secondly, the moon must be high enough in the sky to be visible.

Because of the Earth's rotation, the moon is above the horizon roughly 12 hours out of every 24. Since those 12 hours almost never coincide with the roughly 12 hours of daylight in every 24 hours, the possible window for observing the moon in daylight averages about 6 hours a day.

Now the link will get you through the why part.. Now onto the how part...

http://apol.mst.edu/documents/WavesT.pdf

Now that can in the very least give an explanation of how an EM vector field is a real thing and it applies in reality. Thats the real world not the fantasy you live in tool... Want to disprove his claim? Good here is the equations on that PDF I linked to. SO get to it junior...

from that PDF file...

The movement of energy may be characterized by the wavelength in vacuum l, frequency f =
w/2p, or quantum energy. The wavelength and frequency are related through the wave
equation as l f = c = speed of light in vacuum. The quantum energy Eq = hf where h is
Planck’s constant. (See Constants and Units for values of constants). Divisions of the
electromagnetic spectrum include the following and are illustrated in Figure 1.
Radio Frequency (RF) - electromagnetic radiation band with frequencies between
about 10 kHz and 300,000 Mhz, used in numerous communication technologies.
Shortwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 200 meters and 20
meters; includes the middle bands of radio frequencies.
Microwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 1 meters and 1
millimeters; includes the upper bands of radio frequencies.
Light - electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared bands or optical
range with wavelengths between about 1 nm and 105 nm.
X-rays - electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between about 10 nm and 0.01
nm; usually described as high-energy photons.

LOL, looks like fun what till you see the equations involved....

Interesting, but let's get down to brass tacks. Are you or are you not backing up wirebender's "EM vector" theory? This discussion really isn't about the moon, but about why, if his threory is correct, I can see it in the daytime sometimes. According to his theory, and I believe you've been thanking him for his posts, I shouldn't be able to. How about exlaining THAT?

 

[gslack]

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

Ok I am going to humor your silly juvenile ass this once more then I am done so pay attention junior!

First there is the factor that the moon orbits the earth.. And here is a nice graphic to show how that works...

And here is a very nice explanation ...

Why Do We See the Moon in Daylight? | Space.com



Now the link will get you through the why part.. Now onto the how part...

http://apol.mst.edu/documents/WavesT.pdf

Now that can in the very least give an explanation of how an EM vector field is a real thing and it applies in reality. Thats the real world not the fantasy you live in tool... Want to disprove his claim? Good here is the equations on that PDF I linked to. SO get to it junior...

from that PDF file...

The movement of energy may be characterized by the wavelength in vacuum l, frequency f =
w/2p, or quantum energy. The wavelength and frequency are related through the wave
equation as l f = c = speed of light in vacuum. The quantum energy Eq = hf where h is
Planck’s constant. (See Constants and Units for values of constants). Divisions of the
electromagnetic spectrum include the following and are illustrated in Figure 1.
Radio Frequency (RF) - electromagnetic radiation band with frequencies between
about 10 kHz and 300,000 Mhz, used in numerous communication technologies.
Shortwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 200 meters and 20
meters; includes the middle bands of radio frequencies.
Microwave Spectrum - EM band with wavelengths between about 1 meters and 1
millimeters; includes the upper bands of radio frequencies.
Light - electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared bands or optical
range with wavelengths between about 1 nm and 105 nm.
X-rays - electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between about 10 nm and 0.01
nm; usually described as high-energy photons.

LOL, looks like fun what till you see the equations involved....

Interesting, but let's get down to brass tacks. Are you or are you not backing up wirebender's "EM vector" theory? This discussion really isn't about the moon, but about why, if his threory is correct, I can see it in the daytime sometimes. According to his theory, and I believe you've been thanking him for his posts, I shouldn't be able to. How about exlaining THAT?

Look useless I just gave you the tools to figure it out and check his math. If you don't want to or can't do it than say so. Don't ask me to give you quantum mechanics/theory lessons, I am not qualified nor interested. YOU said he was wrong, actually said he made the term up..

FACT is he did not make the term up as you claimed. and after I showed that, you then decided to change your argument and ask him to prove his theory. First if you can prove quantum theory as pertains to reflective heat/retentive qualities of CO2 in real world applications, then you will most likely have big grant money coming to you junior. As that is not the case and quantum theory relies on rules that do not apply in the physical world, good luck with that junior.

Now either man up and back up your assertions about his math being wrong, or STFU and go change the argument again.

Just a clue junior since you obviously didnt read or grasp the info in the links i posted earlier.

1. Your claim was...
"Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?! "

Meaning he made the term "EM Vectors" up....

That was a false claim and proven to be so time and again now...

SO junior back to the argument you keep trying to change.... He did not make the term up did he junior???? Come on boy admit it, you can do that much he didn't make it up and you once again spoke without knowing what you are talking about....

You do that and maybe I will help you with your little quantum theory problem...

 

[konradv]

1. Your claim was...
"Who can do anything but laugh about so-called "EM vectors" which would stop IR photons from reaching Earth, while not realizing that, if it were true, we'd never be able to see the moon in the day time?!?! "

Meaning he made the term "EM Vectors" up....
That was a false claim and proven to be so time and again now...

SO junior back to the argument you keep trying to change.... He did not make the term up did he junior???? Come on boy admit it, you can do that much he didn't make it up and you once again spoke without knowing what you are talking about....

You do that and maybe I will help you with your little quantum theory problem...

LOL!!! There you go again!!! Telling me what I mean. Tell us what YOU mean and I'll take care of what I mean. I never said or implied that "EM vectors" are made up, just that he's not aplying the physics in any way with which I'm familiar and hasn't explained why, given HIS theory, why I can see the moon in the daytime. Make fun all you want. All I get out of it is that you can't explain it either. But since he's on your side you have to back him up anyway, which I consider intellectual dishonesty.

 

[wirebender]

That's easy, for all your math that "proves" IR photons couldn't be returning to earth because of "EM vectors", you haven't shown why I can see the moon in the daytime. Wouldn't EM vectors generated by the sun swamp out moonshine and if not, why not?

First, you must recognize that the moon and the sun are not in straight lines with the earth most times but EM vectors are in straight lines. When it is in a straight line (eclipse) of course, you don't see it, only a black disk covering the sun.

You see the light from the sun reflecting off the moon, which has no atmosphere. That would represent an EM field that is greater in magnitude along a given vector than the EM field from the earth. If you wonder if that is true or not, compare the daytime temperature of the moon to the daytime temeprature of the earth. Which EM field do you believe propagates from the hotter surface? Have you ever noticed that on some days you can see the bright areas of the moon, but the gray areas that represent shadow are invisible, as if you are just seeing sky?

Another reason might be your point of view? Can you imagine any point of view that you might have in looking at the moon in which your head is not between the EM field radiated by the earth and the moon? You have to keep in mind that EM vectors move in straight lines.

Nothing I have said, konradv is in opposition to any law of physics; particularly the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Energy flows from cold to hot, not the other way around. The hypotheses you believe, however, are chock full of necessities to disregard laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

LOL!!! There you go again!!! Telling me what I mean. Tell us what YOU mean and I'll take care of what I mean. I never said or implied that "EM vectors" are made up, just that he's not aplying the physics in any way with which I'm familiar and hasn't explained why, given HIS theory, why I can see the moon in the daytime.

First, you have made it abundantly clear that you are not familiar with physics in any way. Second, I have given you two explanations.

Make fun all you want. All I get out of it is that you can't explain it either. But since he's on your side you have to back him up anyway, which I consider intellectual dishonesty.

So now you have a couple of reasons why you can see the moon during the daylight hours. What objection do you have now?