The moon has land. And yet it plummets from 125 deg C in the day to -233 deg C at night.
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The moon has land. And yet it plummets from 125 deg C in the day to -233 deg C at night.
Apparently a beer Rx is available and I don't have one.
Where did you get your beer Rx bitch?
Instantly?
Where did you get your beer Rx bitch?
Direct sunlight hitting the side facing us "full moon" happens once every 28 days meaning a daily cycle on the moon is 28 days....think about it.....
It doesn't rotate in relation to us but it does in relation to the sun....
And Earth would do exactly the same if it wasn't turning on its axis!
Eternity
The moon has a day night cycle same as earth only longer.....And Earth would do exactly the same if it wasn't turning on its axis!
Eternity
SkyTellers - Moon Phases - About Our Moon
Just think of the temperature changes we would have if the earth rotation was as slow.....
Huh you learn sumpin new every day. I'm a little surprised as apparently we never get to see the dark side of the moon.
And Earth would do exactly the same if it wasn't turning on its axis!
The temperature on the moon drops ridiculously fast when moving from daylight to darkness.
There's lots of differences between the moon and Earth. An atmosphere for one, and a wet atmosphere at that. That means we have thermal inertia to overcome, where the moon does not. That, and we have greenhouse gases...
The two would not react exactly the same if we had the same orbital and axial mechanics.
:lol:
Well, don't mistake misunderstanding for disagreement. I disagree about the peace problem; to me peace is a political problem. Unless you think science should be ruling nations, I don't think that's reasonable. There's a huge difference between policy and scientific findings. But if you care to elaborate, exactly when do you think the other prizes- Physics, Chemistry, Physiology- became meaningless, and if possible could you give examples? When you post from an alternate reality I have no frame of reference. Though I do enjoy reading your posts. I would engage you if I didn't.
Well if we were restricted solely to dictionary meanings then we would have to view the political stance of science in this matter of climate change as unscientific. You're imagining the clean wholesome nature of science Nobels while admitting the dirty nature of the humanities Nobels. Both are equally susceptable to political pressure and all of them are subject to misuse to push unrelated agendas, much the same way that moving picture and musical celebrities are called upon to prostitute themselves. You're familiar with the rule that "fame carries a price" no doubt. Alternative reality is still reality. ha
I agree with that.
A Nobel Prize for the Dark Side
Posted on October 11, 2011 by Wal Thornhill
“Science today is about getting some results, framing those results in an attention-grabbing media release and basking in the glory.” —Kerry Cue, Canberra Times, 5 October 2011
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/11/a-nobel-prize-for-the-dark-side/On October 4, 2011 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astrophysicists for “THE ACCELERATING UNIVERSE.” Prof. Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, has been awarded half the 10m Swedish krona (US$1,456,000 or £940,000) prize, with Prof. Schmidt of the Australian National University and Prof. Riess of Johns Hopkins University’s Space Telescope Science Institute sharing the other half. The notion of an accelerating expansion of the universe is based on observation of supernovae at high redshift, known as The High-Z SN Search.
(cultural historian Jacques Barzun was right. Also, Halton Arp’s appraisal of the effect of modern education seemed fitting:
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”)
The big bang universe where 96% of the universe is imaginary. The plasma universe has >99% of the universe in the form of plasma and <1% solids, liquids and neutral gases.
As noted in the past, Hannes Alfvén thought that the “exploding double layer” should be considered a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Compression zones (z-pinches) in plasma filaments create plasmoids that evolve into stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high the double layers in the circuit catastrophically release their excess energy and appear as gamma-ray bursts, X-rays or flares of ultraviolet light.
As Alfvén said in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “… it is obvious that astrophysics runs the risk of getting too speculative, unless it tries very hard to keep contact with laboratory physics. Indeed it is essential to stress that astrophysics is essentially an application to cosmic phenomena of the laws of nature found in the laboratory. From this follows that a particular field of astrophysics is not ripe for a scientific approach before experimental physics has reached a certain state of development.”
The mathematics of a pure magnetic field that is “frozen-in” to a perfectly conducting plasma has enabled theoreticians to dismiss the electrical aspects of plasma in space. Ironically, the author of the idea, Hannes Alfvén, soon realized his error. He warned scientists against it in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
As noted in the past, Hannes Alfvén thought that the “exploding double layer” should be considered a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Compression zones (z-pinches) in plasma filaments create plasmoids that evolve into stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high the double layers in the circuit catastrophically release their excess energy and appear as gamma-ray bursts, X-rays or flares of ultraviolet light.
As Alfvén said in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “… it is obvious that astrophysics runs the risk of getting too speculative, unless it tries very hard to keep contact with laboratory physics. Indeed it is essential to stress that astrophysics is essentially an application to cosmic phenomena of the laws of nature found in the laboratory. From this follows that a particular field of astrophysics is not ripe for a scientific approach before experimental physics has reached a certain state of development.”
The mathematics of a pure magnetic field that is “frozen-in” to a perfectly conducting plasma has enabled theoreticians to dismiss the electrical aspects of plasma in space. Ironically, the author of the idea, Hannes Alfvén, soon realized his error. He warned scientists against it in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous “pseudo-pedagogical concept”…, which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.
So Alfven got the prize for a bogus discovery that he admitted prior to the award and they ignored him and awarded him anyway. (because it was useful to advance the bogus BB theory.)
So Alfven got the prize for a bogus discovery that he admitted prior to the award and they ignored him and awarded him anyway. (because it was useful to advance the bogus BB theory.)
Last edited:
And I was always under the impression that one of the reason it was colder in winter was because the sun rays were hitting the atmosphere at an indirect angle thus having less heat effect.....oh well.....
air is also an insulator...why else have dual pane windows.......
air is also an insulator...why else have dual pane windows.......
The peer review process is susceptible to conflicts of interest and is easily turned into a form of censorship. It can ensure that published results align with a particular consensus theory. Science is not a democratic process. It is in no sense dependent upon consensus, nor is truth the outcome of a vote. Indeed, consensus is the very antithesis of real science. When a peer review panel begins to promote a particular theory, science is no longer the criterion. Political correctness displaces the physics and the chemistry. One crucial vulnerability in scientists’ practice of the scientific method is the reluctance to acknowledge falsification often because the falsifying facts lie outside their specialized field of view. Peer review can bring attention to data and logical considerations that require attention.
Running the peer review gauntlet. Credit: GenomicEnterprise.com
Of course it is. It's not just climate change, pick any topic that has policy implications. Likewise, you have a political stance and it shapes your view. We all do. It's naive and foolishly arrogant to think our favored explanations are the least biased.
Don't get me wrong. The scientific process is not infallible. I've never said that. I'll reply in the same manner that I always have though to this specific talking point, what do you think is a better system? The problem with science is humans. Always has been. A lot of ink has been spilled on this topic, but nobody has come up with a better process yet.
Technically, I'm saying one is worse than the other. You brought up Obama and his peace prize. He did absolutely nothing and got a prize. There is no parallel in the prizes awarded to Chemistry, Physics, or Physiology. They all did something. Now you can argue about the merits and politics involved if you like. But clearly they actually did something in their field.
No, alternative reality is alternative reality. If it's reality, then you don't call it alternative. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't have variation between the two and have concordance at the same time.
Again, you can crap on the peer review system if you like. It's not perfect. Anyone who has dealt with it can tell you stories. But what's your alternative?
I attended a lecture in Leiden given by Prof. Schmidt in 2012. The accelerating expansion of the universe has been documented using multiple different methods which have replicated the results. That's called a robust finding.
A very good reply thankyou, I see your points and mostly agree. redshift indicates age not distance.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006
Photo: P. Izzo
John C. Mather
Prize share: 1/2
Photo: J. Bauer
George F. Smoot
Prize share: 1/2
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006 was awarded jointly to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation
There is no cosmic microwave background.
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014
Posted on April 25, 2014 by sschirott
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the … Continue reading →
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/20...aille-the-cosmic-microwave-background-eu2014/
Redshifts and Microwaves
Posted on February 19, 2014 by Stephen Smith
Feb 19, 2014 Modern astronomy surely suffers from a kind of blindness. It is either a blindness of mind or one of practice. The continuing presence of Big Bang cosmology among those who are charged with increasing the store … Continue reading →
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006
Photo: P. IzzoJohn C. Mather
Prize share: 1/2
Photo: J. BauerGeorge F. Smoot
Prize share: 1/2
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006 was awarded jointly to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation
There is no cosmic microwave background.
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014
Posted on April 25, 2014 by sschirott
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the … Continue reading →
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/20...aille-the-cosmic-microwave-background-eu2014/
Redshifts and Microwaves
Posted on February 19, 2014 by Stephen Smith
Feb 19, 2014 Modern astronomy surely suffers from a kind of blindness. It is either a blindness of mind or one of practice. The continuing presence of Big Bang cosmology among those who are charged with increasing the store … Continue reading →