Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[Wuwei]

The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.

OK...do describe the underlying mechanism for EM accelerating charges.

You might start with describing precisely how the Coulomb force operates because the mechanism of acceleration in EM charges can not be understood without a precise understanding of how the Coulomb force actually operates.

Never mind...don't bother...there are numerous hypotheses on what the underlying mechanism is, but the underlying fact is that we don't know...and since we don't know that, we can't really know the underlying mechanism responsible for EM accelerating charges...you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...you believe that because we know a thing works, and why it works, that somehow that equates to how it works...i suppose you also think we know how gravity works.

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.

You are bored? You incorrectly think the second law of thermodynamics says that there is no type of energy that can spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer body. Many experiments show you are totally wrong. No scientist agrees with you.

Here is the bottom line. We all agree that radiation can mediate energy flow. Aim a detector at the hot object, you see it is radiating energy. Aim the detector at the cold object, you see it radiates less energy. No observed measured experiment has shown they cannot radiate simultaneously.

Observed, measured principles of physics say they do. Many here have given you measured observed examples that show you are wrong – the CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. You counter those examples with made up non-“science” that is totally inconsistent with all other science which you openly and vehemently disparage. None of your “science” can be found in the literature and you are aware of that. You are alone in your belief. So you are bored? I think you are intellectually exhausted.

 

[SSDD]

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.

You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.

 

[Wuwei]

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.

You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.

You are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured, observed, and tested. Not mathematical models. I see you are no longer bored of your lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.

You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.

Don't forget Dr Raeder.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

Every shiny thing?

You mean every source you ever posted? LOL!

Post another one, I love it when your sources disagree with your claims.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

Every shiny thing?

You mean every source you ever posted? LOL!

Post another one, I love it when your sources disagree with your claims.

What do you know...still nothing...not surprising at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

Every shiny thing?

You mean every source you ever posted? LOL!

Post another one, I love it when your sources disagree with your claims.

What do you know...still nothing...not surprising at all.

Post another one! LOL!

 

[HenryBHough]

Now that it's clear that a new ice age looms we can expect Fr. Algore to start asking people send him money so he can burn it to keep things from getting too frosty.

Oh, he'll burn it....buying energy to warm his mansion!

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

So no more science is coming from you? Just ad hominem.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.

So no more science is coming from you? Just ad hominem.

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.

 

[Wuwei]

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.

My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.

 

[SSDD]

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.

My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.

No...your foolishness is not knowing how instrumentation works, what it is measuring, and how it derives the values it produces. Your foolishness is believing in models over reality. Your foolishness is continuing to argue with me because I am always going to ask for observed, measured evidence and you are never going to be able to produce it so the best you will ever manage with me is a mewling, bleating, whining claim that I just don't believe in science....

Here is the definition of science according to the science dictionary:

The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. ♦ Science makes use of the scientific method , which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

Nothing there about belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...science is all about producing observable, measurable, reproducible results...if you aren't doing that, then you aren't doing science...

The scientific method requires experimentation, and experimentation always produces observable, measurable data...since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened...either the results were unacceptable, and never made it into the public sphere, or no experimentation or measurement was ever done in which case, we aren't talking about science at all.

 

[Wuwei]

.since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened.

Nope, you are dead wrong. We covered that many times. Modern science that is involved with interactions of matter is represented by precise experiments and result in thoroughly tested models. If you don't believe that you don't believe science, but you of course said that many times already.

 

[SSDD]

.since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened.

Nope, you are dead wrong. We covered that many times. Modern science that is involved with interactions of matter is represented by precise experiments and result in thoroughly tested models. If you don't believe that you don't believe science, but you of course said that many times already.

Much of modern science doesn't even live within the definition of science..therefore it isn't. Redefining what you call science doesn't alter the fact. And how do you suppose models represent the reality of mechanisms which we have yet to grasp? The whole point of actual experimentation is to learn about actual reality. If you base a model on hypothetical mechanisms, then it will produce the results those hypothetical mechanisms might produce if they were real, but that is not an experiment that will give you a greater grasp on reality...it is little more than a video game programmed to provide a particular outcome. Models attempting to replicate physical realities that we have little or no understanding of are useless.

the greenhouse hypothesis is a fine example...it only works here even though the realities of energy movement through atmospheres are the same across the solar system...a hypothesis that is on the right track should be able to predict the temperature in any atmosphere and should not require an ad hoc fudge factor. Running those models is not experimentation...it is political grandstanding.

 

[Wuwei]

Much of modern science doesn't even live within the definition of science..therefore it isn't. Redefining what you call science doesn't alter the fact. And how do you suppose models represent the reality of mechanisms which we have yet to grasp? The whole point of actual experimentation is to learn about actual reality. If you base a model on hypothetical mechanisms, then it will produce the results those hypothetical mechanisms might produce if they were real, but that is not an experiment that will give you a greater grasp on reality...it is little more than a video game programmed to provide a particular outcome. Models attempting to replicate physical realities that we have little or no understanding of are useless.

the greenhouse hypothesis is a fine example...it only works here even though the realities of energy movement through atmospheres are the same across the solar system...a hypothesis that is on the right track should be able to predict the temperature in any atmosphere and should not require an ad hoc fudge factor. Running those models is not experimentation...it is political grandstanding.

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

Models attempting to replicate complex physical systems are called simulations which use the basic models. Simulations depend on finding and expressing all influences on the system. These are not as accurate, and certainly would have larger error bars. Often the error bars are found by considering the extrema of each influence. That is why when you see future projections they will have a wide variation.

One example is hurricane path prediction where the influences would be hard to project accurately.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..

Not like cooling photons? LOL!

 

[Aurora Woman]

One of my favorite topics. From Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

"But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

See also:
"The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been
absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper
atmosphere is responding.

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the
edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.""
( Solar Maximum (and Solar Minimum) 2009-2020 )

 

[Wuwei]

Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.

To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..

By basic physics I mean principles such as quantum electrodynamics, QED. That theory underwent intense experimental verification of various properties. Agreement between theory and many experiments are in parts per billion. The magnetic dipole moment of the electron and the Rydberg constant in spectroscopy show theoretical accuracy measured in parts per trillion.

Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

I would say that kind of experimental accuracy really does reflect reality.
Do you think QED is "fairy dust"? Your friend SSDD does.

.