Fundamental Laws Of Nature

Where Adolfo and Friends can talk about what is, what is not, what seems to be but isn’t, and how all the other folks have not quite got it right ;-)

Oliver is also invited to chime in on solar physics (and just why we have those odd isotope ratios)…

While the Planet and Sun folks plot out our future “As The Planets Turn”…

Me? Well, I was looking at this graph of ancient amospheric density and noticed that a linear fit of a line has an intersection with the 20,000 ft plus density in about 45 Million Years… So if we destroy ourselves, nature only has about 50 Million Years to reevolve space traveling species… OR, they will need to have Very Big Lungs ;-) (Oh, and the ocean will be evaporating pretty fast then too…)

Air Density Change Over Time... a long time...

Air Density Change Over Time... a long time...

Yes, that’s Air, Water, Earth, Fire (both kinds – oxygen and nuclear driven), and Plasma…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Human Interest, Science Bits and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Fundamental Laws Of Nature

  1. George says:

    Graph? What graph?

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    This one… Maybe I’ll put it in the posting….

  3. david says:

    Such a thread could easily lead down any road. I am curious if anyone has a good reference for how the fundemental laws of both classic and quantum physics all are “just right” to allow billions of years for the process of creation, preservation and destruction to manifest, whereas if those primary forces were even a little different, then the first manifestations of the big bang would have led to rapid entropy of all matter.

  4. Thanks for the topic and the graph.

    You may have struck a sensitive nerve:

    Inability to perceive on scales beyond ourselves.

    Of the seven deadly sins, Pride is usually listed as #1.

    Why? Perhaps because Humility is the key to Reality, and Humility is the absence of Pride. Humiliation is injury to Pride. I suspect that is the reason society is collapsing today while leaders of nations and sciences are trapped helplessly like rats on a sinking ship.

    Trapped by pride, or lack of humility.

    A similar topic was introduced in the “Neutron Repulsion Group” under the title, “Is Humility the Key to Reality?”

    It began with this brief ( 3 min) video:

    Again, E.M., I appreciate your insight.

  5. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; where did that graph come from originally? what is the science that lead to it’s creation? This demonstrates the cause of Iceages and warm poles! pg

  6. Eric Barnes says:

    Hi EM,
    You may have already seen these links. They were very thought provoking for me. Greater atmospheric mass and its greater thermal capacity seems to have quite a bit of explanatory power IMO.
    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html#auth
    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    @david (11:11:28) : What big bang ‘who lit the first match?. Do you remember the Bottle of Klein? that one which is a three dimensional version of the Möbius strip:

    We should take in consideration, just to begin with, that seemingly,and relatively, reality arrangements repeat in every dimension (size) like a “Matrioska”

    So, to start the conversation, let us begin asking: how does it a particular phenomenon start?
    In the beginning we have nothing else but a force, say=1, and the void around=0, and, and, just to establish a way, a route, of reasoning, like being in the ancient Greek “Agora” :
    The Agora (Greek: Ἀγορά, Agorá) was an central spot in ancient Greek city-states. It’s literal meaning is “Gathering place” or “Assembly”. It was the center of athletic, artistic, spiritual and politcal life of the city.
    (BTW:Now called a “Blog”, this E.M´s Blog)
    let us say that such a force is a “charge” and the void is something deprived of such a charge, an empty vessel, say a “capacitor”, a “Leyden´s bottle”….:

    Then, let us begin our “Glass Bead Game”
    One more thing: Any similar phenomena, describing “manifestation” and “flow” are valid.
    (following Heraclitus :Πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei) “everything flows”)

  8. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Eric Barnes (15:03:48) : Not OT your intervention: All is the same: charge.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    I wish to reproduce here a comment I made at:
    http://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/pictorial-schematic-of-device/gravity-is-a-myth/#comment-67
    .But what is matter?, what is “mass”?, the transient existence of a wave of moving energy seen as immobilized by our subjectivity as observers?
    If we go to the fundamentals, then, for practical purposes, let us begin by trying to describe how a flow originates: from one active force, a charge to a passive emptiness, a void to be filled. However there is a third force: it must be somewhat external to matter: Of course an already existing EM field, previously “born”. Such “exterior” force, which acts against the manifestation of a new development, you may call it “aether” or whatever but it should be as material as anything else. The new development: A small “creature” trying to develop IN the bigger realm of an already existing universe…what´s first, the chicken or the egg?, that is not our business, however we can make the exercise of describing what happens when something new begins to “develop”, and with that purpose I like to visualize a charge=1 and a Void= 0, in its turn, and to be practical, the same as an empty “capacitor”, from that moment on it begins movement and phenomena.
    Think: Why does a capacitor work as such?, btw in the same way that a “thermos” flask, reflecting IR light on its reflecting inner surfaces….and, if you follow the analogy, take a “ramp pump” where the “capacitor” is a tank where water is saved once and again, until it reaches a certain “pressure”. See?, the analogy is perfect: There is one point where it “feeds”, accumulates, and a point where a part of the energy is relieved, as there are two “check valves”. In the case of the “ramp pump” what is sought is to increase pressure, to increase the energy level, to climb up the “pitch” of the octave, as when we grow up, the negentropic way up, feeding ourselves like the ramp pump…There is the other way, of course, the way of entropy, the way of spending energy.
    Thus we can achieve the understanding of the primordial laws…

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    @David:

    “Somewhere” on the shelf I have this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Constants-Nature-Omega-Numbers-Universe/dp/0375422218

    It looks at the question of just how precise to the constants of nature have to be for the universe to exist as it does. The answer is that a surprising number of them can’t be any different at all, for any practical precision, or either the universe doesn’t exist as we know it or we don’t exist…

    This isn’t all THAT surprising if you allow for ‘parallel universes’ as life like us would only evolve into existence here to then marvel at how good the ‘fit’ was….

    I liked it, anyway ;-)

    A major contribution to our understanding of the basic laws of the universe — from the author of The Book of Nothing.

    The constants of nature are the fundamental laws of physics that apply throughout the universe: gravity, velocity of light, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. They encode the deepest secrets of the universe, and express at once our greatest knowledge and our greatest ignorance about the cosmos.

    Their existence has taught us the profound truth that nature abounds with unseen regularities. Yet while we have become skilled at measuring the values of these constants, our frustrating inability to explain or predict their values shows how much we have still to learn about inner workings of the universe.

    What is the ultimate status of these constants of nature? Are they truly constant? And are there other universes where they are different?

    John D. Barrow, one of our foremost mathematicians and cosmologists, discusses the latest thinking about these and many more dramatic issues in this accessible and thought-provoking book.

    Looks like they have a paperback too:

    http://www.amazon.com/Constants-Nature-Numbers-Deepest-Universe/dp/1400032253

    Another one that looks interesting based only on the title is:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387734546/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2

    This book examines constants, the role they play in the laws of physics, and whether indeed constants can be verified. From the laboratory to the depths of space, it explores the paths of gravitation, general relativity and new theories such as that of superstrings. Coverage investigates the solidity of the foundations of physics and discusses the implications of the discovery of the non-constancy of a constant. The book even goes beyond the subject of constants to explain and discuss many ideas in physics, encountering along the way, for example, such exciting details as the discovery of a natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon.

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    The inability of our “Settled Scientists” to recognize when they are wrong has caused most fields of science to advance at the rate at which “emeritus professors” expire…. ( part of why I’ve ranted a bit about the need for “Open Review” or “Public Review” rather than “peer review”…)

    The inability of our “Leaders” to recognize when they are leading us to hell has caused much interesting history, but not much advance of civilization. Be it the Third Reich and the inability to admit even as they were being utterly destroyed as a nation that maybe it wasn’t going to work out as expected; or our present “leaders” who can’t recognize that with only 2.x kids entering the working years as the baby boomers enter retirement “the workers / takers ratio” doesn’t work out… To our “financial leaders” who can’t admit that paper currency is not real wealth, so they keep playing ‘paper games’ and wonder why reality doesn’t follow along… (all the while shipping real wealth creation machinery to China…)

    Sadly, I think you are correct. Ego trumps reason. A little more Humility would go a very long way. “Please, God, let them think just for a moment ‘Perhaps I might be wrong’…”

    @P.G. Sharrow:

    I picked it up from WUWT here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

    Though this posting is also related:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/25/nas-reports-50-million-year-cooling-trend/

    @Eric Barns:

    Hadn’t seen them… Something to read while I try to get XP working on my desktop box ;-)

    @Adolfo:

    I’ve mentioned it a few times and in a few places, so you may have seen it before… But related to your 0/1 oscillator is an idea I had once about the BIg Bang.

    It is the “steady state Big Bang”. In the beginning was a singularity. The universe was void and without form. We now call it a ‘white hole’ and say that a ‘big bang’ happened as time, space, and all matter came instantly into existence.

    As time unfolds, mass gathers into dense spots, eventually so dense that a singularity is formed (again…) such that even time and space are erased inside that singularity. At “infinite time” all matter will have eventually encountered one of these black holes (over infinite time, even a near zero rate of relative motion will have matter and black hole have an encounter…) to eventually result in a universe devoid of matter other than black holes – where matter, time, and space cease to exist…

    So what if the only property that is conserved is momentum? Mass falling into a black hole has momentum… and enters a place where even time winks out, only to exit on the other side of the singularity of time: at the beginning of time the matter is carried by its momentum back into existence. But all that matter that enters all those black holes over all of time, comes back into the other side of the singularity at the “same time”, as time winked out in the middle… and the Big Bang is born…

    I’ll leave what started the motion and momentum in the first place as an exercise for the reader ;-)

  11. Halfwise says:

    It was the egg. Errr, no, the chicken. No, the egg. Darn.

    In terms of origin of the universe, I am pretty sure that whatever half the world agrees is right, the other half will figure is either lunacy or heresy.

    But I love the idea of humility as the foundation of any such discussion.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    @ David “I am curious if anyone has a good reference for how the fundemental laws of both classic and quantum physics all are “just right” ”

    One possible answer is that the laws of nature evolve. Consider the commonly touted “multi-verse” idea, the idea that at each quantum wave collapse, what actually happens is that the universe splits into two (or more) versions. Modify that slightly…and consider what would happen if each new universe had very, very slightly “mutated” laws. In one universe, gravity perhaps works as we know it, and in another gravity works not as an inverse square, but as an inverse 2.000004 power. In one universe neutrons have a slightly smaller mass than in another. Pretty quickly, the universes that do NOT have stability will fall apart and cease to have quantum transitions. They are dead ends. Those universes that have too much stability will fall into stasis and also cease to have quantum transitions. They, also are dead ends. But the ones that fall into the sweet spot between stability and dynamism will continue to split, to reproduce, to mutate and to…evolve. The reason why our universe is rich and complex without being static or pure chaos, is that it has evolved. Our universe is the current result of billions of years of minor mutations of physical laws and then strict weeding of the quantum offspring. This is Darwin writ large.

  13. david says:

    E.M.Smith (19:35:58) :

    @David:

    “Somewhere” on the shelf I have this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Constants-Nature-Omega-Numbers-Universe/dp/0375422218

    It looks at the question of just how precise to the constants of nature have to be for the universe to exist as it does. The answer is that a surprising number of them can’t be any different at all, for any practical precision, or either the universe doesn’t exist as we know it or we don’t exist…

    This isn’t all THAT surprising if you allow for ‘parallel universes’ as life like us would only evolve into existence here to then marvel at how good the ‘fit’ was….

    I liked it, anyway ;-)
    ———————————————–
    Thank you for the links and the thoughts. it seams to me to be far beyond random. Parallel universes’ if they lacked the goldilocks physics, would not develope period, but as Jason Calley says, quickly fail. Much about Parallel Universes and cyclic big bang to me avoids the mystery of mysteries. It simply puts off the question, what started it all, what is beyond the singularity. If something, anything always was, then all that could have happened would have happened.

    When Hawking says such things as …”Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” and “Spontaneous creation is the reason [why] there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” and “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing…
    Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing” I am struck at the illogic and hubris and can only quote, “Truth no doubt, humbly retires before such arrogance.”

    I haved saved a comment but can not remember the author…“Hawking is effectively saying that the law of gravity applies when there is ‘nothing’; that X creates X; and that ‘nothing’ becomes something. But a physical law is not a physical thing, it is merely a description of properties and behaviors of something that already exists. Laws have no power over anything, they do not control, regulate, create, explain or cause. They produce no events, they merely describe patterns to which events conform; they have no causative or sustaining power. t\There can be no laws of motion without motion, no laws of gravity without gravity etc because the laws are merely the descriptions of the properties of the things themselves. ‘Laws of nature’ do not have any real and independent existence apart from the properties and phenomena they describe” except perhaps in the mind of the infinite.”

    I am sorry for the long post, but where else can this lead but to the cosmological argument, which I have possibly developed a mathmatical expression of. Adolfogiurfa appears to appoach it here with his “In the beginning we have nothing else but a force, say=1, and the void around=0, and, and, just to establish a way, a route, of reasoning, like being in the ancient Greek “Agora” : I actually develope this along three field or concepts. Zero is one field, one through any number is another construct, and infinity is a separate field, containg one through any number, but forever beyond it. Forgive the length, but it takes a little to articulate.

    COSMLOGICAL ARGUMENT EXPRESSED MATMATICALLY IN RELATIONSHIP TO CAUSE AND EFFECT.

    Field one = 0
    Zero is neither cause nor effect in an absolute sense. “Nothing can come from nothing. Zero is, in a sense, the ultimate atheist and believes in nothing, being wholly negative, the absence of anything. It is useful in exploring the “first cause dilemma of duality”, or things relative.

    Field two is 1 through any number.
    Field two is the domain of science, and can be both an effect and a cause. Two plus two equals four. Four is the effect, two and two are the cause. (Duh)

    Everything in this field (1 through any number) demands both cause and effect. Everything in this field is relative. It must be able to be measured and quantified. It is subject to time, which runs in one direction, and space.

    Classical mechanical theory and quantum physics still require relativity, and to be quantified. A photon is something, and quantifiable. The Higgs field, if found will be quantifiable. The Singularity must be described in other then absolute terms. Every effect is proceeded by a prior cause. There can be no effect without a prior cause. All causes are themselves an effect. Cause and effect is a chain and it, with the arrow of time, moves in one direction. In this sense science is the study of how all things in the cosmos interact, and the laws that govern those interactions. Science is constrained to time and space and relativity. Science cannot contain absolutes. I maintain that science is, in its essence, “cause and effect” as quantified by relative numbers.

    Field two is incapable of giving one hypothetical “first cause” no matter how right or wrong, which is not relative and in turn demands another prior cause. And this is the dilemma of field two. It cannot explain itself. It is perfectly suited to examine and explain how it operates. However it cannot logically explain how it came to be, yet it cannot always have been. To state that everything came from nothing (Field one) is not science. To state that “everything” always was, is an assertion of ignorance, not a scientific explanation. Steady state theory, brane theory, cyclic big bang theory, all in essence, state that everything in field two is a complete mystery, and always will be, because everything inclusive, (quantifiable by one through any number) themselves have no cause, having always been.

    Any attempt, via field two tools to explain “one“, the “first caused” will invariable lead scientist to infinite energy beyond time and space explanations. When a scientist says something is beyond time and space he is not saying what it is, he is saying what it is not. He is making a confession of the limitation of his tools. A confession of inability, is not an answer. Logically and mathematically Field two cannot explain or deny field three, or itself, it can only explain things within itself, and due to the arrow of time, every number but one. Any adjective used which can be quantified by a number, can in turn be an effect, or resulting sum from a proceeding cause. Marconi stated, “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery is absolute.” Field two cannot explain absolutes.

    Science can eventually explain everything in field two, “One through any number” except for “one”, the first caused. “One” is unique in this field, in that it can never be explained without relating to field three. One is the “first caused” anything that is measurable and quantifiable. Field two is the perfect agnostic and logically states, I cannot know. All scientist who hold science as the sole means of knowing anything should logically be agnostic.

    Field three is infinity. It is not a number. It cannot be measured. Nothing on its own or combined inclusive ever done in field two can equal field three. One trillion times one trillion, is no closer to measuring field three then one plus one. It is not subject to time or relativity. It is a concept that cannot be denied, yet cannot defined by field two. The human brain, being a field two construct, cannot explain yet cannot deny the existence of field three. Any attempt to imagine the end of space or the beginning of time for instance, is forever met by the inevitable question, “What is beyond that? What came before that? When talking of the expansion of space the human brain says expansion into what?

    Field three is undeniable, yet forever immeasurable, and forever beyond the scope of field two, “one through any number“. Science can only deal with things which can be measured. Field three is transcendent, and beyond field two.

    Any attempt, via field two tools to explain “one“, the “first caused” will invariable lead scientist to infinite energy beyond time and space explanations. Given that field two cannot explain itself, the only logical answer to what caused the “first caused” is in field three. Field three is the “first cause:, beyond the laws of “cause and effect” saying to field two, I exist, you cannot deny me, and you cannot measure me, I can cause you, you can never cause me. I can live without you, you cannot live without me, I am transcendent. You can only know me by transcending field two.

    Well my dear Mr Smith, again sorry, but all roads are ultimately connected.
    (-;

  14. George says:

    I am almost embarrassed reading Willis’ latest at Anthony’s blog.

  15. Wayne Job says:

    George, So was I.

  16. Wayne Job says:

    Well I am going to say something. Being as I am a mechanical engineer and constrained by the practicalities of my brain, I take exception to any possibilities of a singularity exploding into a universe. The basic planning of a universe and the physical and chemical laws that govern its development and existence are beyond our comprehension at this stage of our primitive science.

    Planning would be carefully done to avoid SNAFU , central would be a medium that continually and spontaniously creates the building blocks of matter. These basic balls of energy are robust and reinforced by the medium that created them. They join up to form the major brick in universe building, hydrogen.

    The fondness the hydrogen atoms have for one another gathers them in to clusters that ultimately form stars, stars create the heavier elements, some of these have a penchant for imploding, and some for exploding.

    The stars themselves also seem to be fond of company and form galaxies, the amount of stuff thrown around in these galaxies by the implosions and explosions is prodigious. The production of new hydrogen never ceases and new stars are born capturing the debris of the past.

    We live on such a planet made from debris of long exploded stars. The planning involved for such a long term project such as this precludes the thought that it started with a bang and will end with a whimper.

    The universe is creating new building blocks at a prodigious rate, the expansion is the creation rate of new matter. Our rather young galaxy will get old one day, but the universe is forever young.

  17. david says:

    George and Wayne, I noticed that Willis did not even respond to our hosts comment, nor to several that echoed it.

    I have had a similar experience with Willis. He stated both the earths albedo, and the Moons, doing his calculations from that.

    I pointed out that the earth, unlike the moon, has a highly variable albedo, and if (as I think applies to the earth) the albedo was lower where the greatest absorbtion of TSI occurs, the tropics, and higher near the poles, (greater consistent cloud cover snow and ice, land, reflectance due to incidence angel) then the total albedo relative to TSI could not be averaged, and that the earth recieved more TSI then its average albedo, relative to the very consistent moon. He never resopnded to this, despite several attempts, nor would he consider the oceans and there incredible heat capacity, or acknowldge ANY difference in the SWR heating of the oceans as opposed to LWIR, neither would he consider the concept that as more heat was applied to the ocean surface, an ever greater percentage of that energy is used up in accelerating evaporation. (He simply did not respond to ideas presented).
    ,
    Overall I think Willis is a good guy, it is just hard to see our own flaws as others see them.

  18. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Wayne Job (13:00:56) :
    Well I am going to say something. Being as I am a mechanical engineer and constrained by the practicalities of my brain, I take exception to any possibilities of a singularity exploding into a universe.
    Come on!, were you not conceived from a SINGLE SPERMATOZOID ( a real singularity). And that singularity evolved, increasing is energetic level, like a “ramp pump”, with two “check valves”, in order to reach “higher pitches” of a developing octave!!
    What we don´t understand is that “As Above so Below”, reality, genesis repeats itself in EACH DIMENSION (Size), following the same laws in its development: the “law of three” (of the parallelogram of forces, two of which are always at 90º:electricity and magnetism) and the “law of seven”, generated by the movement itself against an already existing “exterior” field.

  19. @E.M. Smith (19:35:58)

    Please respond to this question, even if you delete it as being off-topic:

    The current demise of society seems to have at least three major roots:

    1. Sciences, including the most fundamental laws of nature
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
    http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html

    2. Social, especially the use of drugs to subjugate nations.

    3. Economics, the economies of formerly Western nations are collapsing.

    1. The explanation for #1 surfaced in late Nov 2009 in Climategate e-mails and documents: Public knowledge of the unstable nature of the Sun – the nuclear furnace that made our elements and them spit out five billion years (5 Gyr) ago – would destroy secret plans to unite nations by claiming global climate change was their common enemy.

    2. I personally work with drug addicts and now see first hand how China was subjugated for decades with opium. Our “war on drugs” accomplished the reverse.

    http://worldhistory1500.blogspot.com/2009/03/opium-wars-and-subjugation-of-china.html

    3. People that I once considered fanatics, like LaRouche, now seem to be the only one trying to address our economic problems.

    Do you see any merit in his proposals [E.g., the Glass-Steagall law to prevent further economic collapse]?

  20. david says:

    Concerning my points on earths albedo I see that my thought process is logical, but the given albedo of earth takes this into consideration according to a chart by latitude. As WUWT is for public reading and education a simple explanation of that would have helped.

    In trying to follow the latest Willis post I saw this, and would appreciate any feedback here.

    Willis, you responded to one post as valid. Your response did not make sense to me. Here is the assertion you rejected…

    4. The thicker and denser the atmosphere, the higher the near surface atmospheric temperature will be.

    Willis responded…

    I don’t think so. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is g / Cp, where g is gravity and Cp is the specific heat of the atmosphere. The lapse rate does not vary with elevation, which means that Cp doesn’t vary with density, so I don’t see how a denser atmosphere would perforce be warmer.
    —————————————

    Humm? The lapse rate may be constant, but it is a constant VARIATION, which appears to be predicated on g and Cp. (IE, the greater the gravity, the higher the specific heat of the atmosphere) What does “specific heat emanate from? If specific heat, which is the heat capacity per unit mass of a material, then the more materials there are per volume, then the greater heat per volume. Therefore an atmosphere of more (denser) material, will have a higher specific heat content then a thinner atmosphere. The lapse rate will be the same in both atmosphers, just the starting point or temperature will be different.

    What am I missing here?

    I have strayed far from my long post (perhaps to long) above concerning fundemental laws and their Goldilocks nature, but perhaps that is just as well.

    Cheers

  21. david says:

    @Wayne Job (13:00:56) :
    Well I am going to say something. Being as I am a mechanical engineer and constrained by the practicalities of my brain, I take exception to any possibilities of a singularity exploding into a universe.
    ————————————————————
    Wayne Job, one of the problems in physics, as I understand it, is that as they keep regressing time to tiny fractions of a second just after the “Big bang”, going ever closer to the beginning, they keep coming up against impossible physics which demand and point to infinite energy (never to nothing) beyond time and space qualities, all of which sound Godlike.

  22. Pascvaks says:

    Don’t anyone go worrying about what things will be like in 20M years, I have it on good authority that Earth will be here still in 50M years and look a lot like this –
    http://digg.com/news/science/future_world_spaceship_earth_in_50_million_years_infographics

    I’m not sure that ‘people’ as we currently know them will be around. Given the facts of life, as we currently imagine today, I’d say we only have 50K-75K years before our jeans wear out and we’re toast. We really do need to consider moving internments back to cave floors so the next species has something to dig up and put in a museum, otherwise they’ll think they were cloned by aliens from the other side of the Milky Way and have no past to speak of.

    Can’t wait for the Ozies to come north and the Med to close. Oh, well, tomorrow is another day.

  23. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Pascvaks: Perhaps we´ll see some other changes before:
    As already stated effect of the solar storms appear to be mainly on the Hudson Bay vortex, where the strength of magnetic field is falling, it is likely that in the foreseeable future (century scale), this vortex may weaken so much and eventually disappear, in which case the magnetic pole would be found in the Central Siberia (64-65N, 107-110E).

    This may have profound consequences for the Earth’s magnetic field, having a bulge in the East hemisphere with opposite pole at ~ 60S, 140E).

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

  24. tckev says:

    E. M. Smith
    Just a thought I’ve held for many years…
    The many books on universal constants assume that time passes at the same rate in all part of the universe. That is totally unknown.
    Could it be that at the beginning of the universe, time passed at a very much faster rate, and as time ripples out to the furthest edges of our known universe, that time passes much slower. That Einsteinian space/time has a variable density, and our particular rate of the passage of time is just a local effect.
    Then could all of this “dark” matter and “dark” energy just an effect of ripples in the passage of time within constrained areas of the universe remote from us.

    Just a thought…

  25. adolfogiurfa says:

    This is what is all about:

  26. E.M.Smith says:

    @Halfwise:

    Anyone who can look at the sky and ask why a raindrop forms and NOT have some humility is suffering from a derangement… the only question is what kind…

    @Jason Calley:

    Interesting idea, universe evolving.. We know it does to some extent as several terms are ‘undefined’ as you enter the singularity (from either side ;-) and both time and space have their very definition and existence ‘wink out’…

    One of the questions asked in the book reference from above was “Are the universal constants constant?”…

    The Universe is at least 15 Billion years old. Something changing by 1/4 over that length of time would, to us, seem a constant. But was it ALWAYS so? At the moment of The Big Bang, was gravity perhaps still ‘stuck on the other side’ of the singularity (leaving us those supper massive black holes with lots of gravity but nothing else detectable…) so we had a very rapid expansion of the ‘stuff’, eventually creating space and time again, and then gravity (as it, too, gets sucked around the bend?)

    One of the odd speculative “fears” it raises is that if some of the ‘constants’ do in fact change with time, we could have the universe disintegrate some odd billions of years in the future… Turning into a universe of gray goo as the particle cohesion breaks down. Sounds like science fiction, but it isn’t.

    Perhaps our present neutron repulsion / decay is just an early symptom of things to come as, progressively, more and more particles breakdown into light… (that gets sucked into supermassive black holes at the very end, to reappear at the beginning of time as one big blast of energy without mass…)

    OK, I need to take a break, I’ll be back soon…

    (Birthdays… At my sisters house a couple of days ago we had 6 folks around the table. 4 of us got candles on our muffins as we were the January birthdays – one of the other two was a February… so I’m being called to celebrate Yet Another Birthday ;-)

  27. George says:

    Earth’s atmosphere is a fluid, GHG’s notwithstanding. Heat transfer occurs by many means, radiation the LEAST among them. If you have a fluid of any sort in a pan and heat the pan, the fluid will warm and convect. This even if the fluid is completely transparent to LWIR. On a planet, a warming surface from radiation will cause the the gas touching that surface to warm by conduction (not via IR radiation). This will cool the surface somewhat.

    The gas will then begin to convect. Also, as it warms, the atoms of gas also will radiate (again this has nothing to do with the greenhouse, these atoms of gas will not absorb LWIR and RE-RADIATE, but they will radiate energy they received from coming in contact with the surface). What I found embarrassing over at WUWT was what seemed to be a notion that only a greenhouse gas would radiate energy and only a greenhouse gas would warm from conduction. I saw someone posting that a non-greenhouse gas would not radiate at all. That’ just silly.

    An atmosphere with absolutely zero greenhouse gas would still warm where it touches the surface, would still convect, would still have an adiabatic lapse rate and would still radiate various amounts of energy at various altitudes as it convects upwards. The atmosphere, when it reaches steady state, will be in a state of constant convection like a lava-lamp. As the gas rises, it will not be warmed by the incoming radiation, its pressure will drop as it rises higher and it will radiate away the energy it received from contact with the surface. New air coming into contact with the surface will rise, pulling cooler air in to take its place.

    So given a surface of a planet without at atmosphere being one temperature, the surface of the same planet given at atmosphere will be slightly cooler because the atmosphere acts as a convective coolant using conduction to absorb heat and radiation to get rid of it. So the overall radiation from the planet will be the same but where it radiates from will vary. Some will radiate from the surface and the rest will radiate from various altitudes as the gas rises.

    The notion that a non-greenhouse gas doesn’t radiate energy when it warms was what I found rather silly.

  28. George says:

    @Pascvaks (17:46:09) :

    That picture doesn’t seem to take into account the counter-clockwise rotation of the North American continent around a point somewhere in Ontario Canada. It has the North American continent orientation unchanged with only a portion of California being dragged North. That results in my being suspicious of all the rest of the shown locations, as well.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason Calley:

    Well, putting off the ‘mystery of mysteries’ presumes that there is such a mystery to put off… a premise that is not proven to be…

    It is always possible that there is no motivational force, that ‘it just is’…

    Our need for a God / Creator does not mandate one to be.

    Is it not just as much “hubris” to presume to pass judgment that a Creator / God *must* exist as to presume that one might not?

    (Me? I take the agnostic position that “I do not know” and either could be. I guess that makes me a ‘field two’ person ;-)

    So to say that the minimum needed to form the universe is gravity and time is to describe the watch, not the watchmaker (though it could give clues about the method… Perhaps the word spoken was ‘gravity’ ;-)

    BTW, there is this road in Alaska that isn’t connected to any other roads… and last time I looked the roads in Hawaii were not connected to those in California ;-)

    One other minor point with the numeric cosmology… Have you considered that the set of ordinal numbers is infinite? So your “One and two and…” is in fact an infinite set? If you allow for negative numbers it gets twice as large (yet stays the same…) and then you need to deal with 1/3 ….

    So I would assert that your non-infinite start at one number series is inevitably part of the infinite series. You may want to work out a ‘patch’ for that…

    Then, one can ask, what do you have if you take one, and subtract one from it. Oh Dear… we are back at that zero… So isn’t zero itself part of ‘reality’ once you have ordinal numbers? Either that, or you can not allow 1 minus 1.

    In the end I find the ‘reasoning from numbers’ strewn with such ‘issues’. The tool ought not define the thoughts. The thoughts ought to select the tool. IMHO. So WAS there ever a “void”? Your answer is based on what evidence? We can’t see past the speed of light barrier so have no idea if our ‘universe’ was ever a void (no matter what theory we cook up) or if it was simply a ‘local void’ in a larger space filled with more ‘stuff’.

    We can not know if there was ever a “zero” state.

    We know that there IS a real (number?) state. We know that contained within real numbers is the infinity. ( 1/3 anyone?…) We know that contained within the real numbers is the zero ( 1-1 or 1.00 – 1.00 ). So isn’t it really a bit of an artifice to pull them out to stand alone as gatekeepers? Can we not live in a universe that ranges from:
    Minus Infinity …-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,… Inifinity?
    Unadorned…

    @George & Wayne Job:

    Perhaps you saw my comment there. I basically said it looked to me like a bit of a tautology where the (artificial) definition causes the paradox and is thus not tied to reality…

    @David:

    The problem with ‘toy universes’ and ‘thought experiments’ is that they ARE toys. At one point I declined an offer of a guest posting at another site as they were VERY found of “toy universe” models of how the climate worked (then would endlessly debate some minutia of their toy world trying to gain understanding).

    I think I p.o’d the host there with my rejection as I noted they posted a comment that “I was uninteresting” ;-)

    But my reason was very simple: You can waste your entire life arguing over hypotheticals that have left out the important bits and learn nothing.

    So any time I see an argument of the form “If we leave out a fundamental aspect of nature, this interesting thing is shown” with the implication that it is anything OTHER than a complete hypothetical fantasy world; I just shake my head and “move along”…

    But the “toy world” and the “model” folks just love their toys… And any attempt to reintroduce the important bits that were left out will be met with “but we’re looking at this toy world that proves my interesting point” (in one variation or another). IMHO, they all come down to “Given these conclusions, what assumptions can I draw?”…

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    I think there is but one taproot. Sin.

    Be it lust for power, greed, gluttony, love of money, etc. it all comes down to the human condition being weak and those in authority being corrupted by the lust for power. The rest is just sequelae… IMHO.

    Per your points:

    1) Science was able to be pure when it was the pastime of the rich and leisure classes. Once it became the industrial handmaiden of patrons and especially when that patronage moved to the government, it became just another whore selling services as desired and providing what was requested. The taproot staying the same.

    2) Social control methods have been around (and improving!) since well before Rome was founded. Even Mesopotamia had kings and a system of rewards and punishments (workers were paid in beer, so use of ‘drugs’ has an old root..). Changes in any particular method are sort of interesting, but don’t really change anything in the cause / effect. It is just looking at the “how” and seeing technical progress. The taproot stays the same.

    3) Our economy WAS stable and highly productive for a generation or more. The “western economies” only started collapsing after then became less western. The “collapse” can be directly tracked against the REMOVAL of the very sound rules of the past. In essence, communism, socialism, and ‘redistributive justice’ are all just forms of coveting. As we have moved from a capitalist model ever more toward a socialist model, and removed the safeguards learned during the Great Depression, we have had the same sort of ‘collapse’ as always follows. The taproot stays the same.

    In particular, several times and in several places I’ve stated that the way to ‘fix it’ is to just put back the rules that were removed (and lead to the problems) along with rescinding the laws that forced ‘social justice’ to have primacy over property rights. In particular, I’ve stated that:

    1) Glass-Steagall needs to be restored (and Dodd-Frank removed)

    2) The “uptick rule” needs to be restored (use $0.25 instead of ‘one tick’ – one of the arguments for removing it being that ‘decimalization’ made it impractical as things are done in penny amounts. It would seem that they have trouble understanding that 1/4 tick is 1/4 dollar is 25 cents…)

    3) The “CRA” was a triumph of Social Justice that just happened to cause the entire mortgage crises to fester until it blew up but FORCING banks to make bad loans. That they found a way to move them off their books only changes WHO got the blow-up, not that it would happen. It needs to be repealed.

    4) The use of Fanny and Freddy as tools of “social engineering” distorts the markets and leads to houses that cost a fortune for no good reason. Eliminate them (and the graft that comes with them – vis the $Million or two that Newt got and the added $Millions others got…) Let the mortgage market be like any other.

    5) If it is insurance, it needs to be under the laws governing insurance companies (that under Glass-Steagall were NOT banks…). It was the removal of that wall between Investment Banking, Insurance, and Commercial Banking the allowed banks to hand off bad mortgages to Investment Banks that then packaged them up as CDOs in SIVs and sold them with “insurance” of the CDS type. One Small Problem: ANYONE could issue a CDS without meeting the insurance laws requiring enough capital to cover the loss…

    CDS Credit Default Swap – “live insurance” on a loan. Loan goes bad, you get paid by the issuer of the CDS – IFF they are still solvent.

    CDO Collateralized Debt Obligation – A “mortgage” of some sort, or a package of them blended as sausage.

    SIV Special Investment Vehicle – A package of various mixes of CDOs and CDSs and other stuff – Sausage made of sausages…

    Once everything was cross connected, not only would mortgages going bad make ONE bank go under, it could many any and all banks go under; taking the insurance with them and causing the financial houses to collapse too (taking all of global investments with THEM…) That the lack of an uptick rule let the truly bright and evil START the run on the banks by “taking out life insurance on them” via issuing $Millions of CDSs (with NOTHING to back them up) and THEN shorting the stock and the collateral of the banks until a run was guaranteed (and collecting on the ‘life insurance’…) was a combination of greed and stupid removal of “the rules” learned the hard way in The Great Depression.

    Hope that helps…

    @David:

    I don’t see you missing anything on density…

    Per the regression leading to ‘infinite energy’…

    Well, if ALL the mass of the universe were concentrated in one spot of no-space and no-time just as time and space came into existence… I think we end up with ‘near infinite energy’ ;-)

    Now if ‘gravity’ is a little slow coming through the singularity (i.e. if gravity is low at the start of time and increasing over time) we have a nice fit to what we see.

    Looked at another way: Mass increases with velocity. As mass falls into a black hole, it accelerates toward the speed of light (and mass increases toward infinite mass…) Over time, more of the stuff of the universe is falling into black holes (so becoming more massive). When it pops out the ‘other side’ space is near zero and velocity IS zero. A whole lot less velocity and thus less mass. IF Space expands faster than the mass moves, it might even make for a lower mass…

    All it takes is an asymmetry of momentum with mass falling into black holes as time progresses, but being “spoken into being” at the beginning of time with the other side of the black hole (the white hole) having the mass coming out ‘all at ones’ as time comes into being. It is the asymmetry of ‘time’ with mass destruction happening over a ‘long time’ and mass creation at a ‘point in time’ coupled with the asymmetry of momentum (‘stuff’ moving out of the white hole / into the black holes) that lets the universe happen as it does.

    (An interesting question is: Is there only ONE such, this one? Or does the super-universe have many such white holes in time and what falls into one set of black holes can come out of many others?… )

    In short: I don’t see a problem with needing ll that much energy. We have all the energy in the Universe to play with ;-)

    @Pascvaks:

    Well, I’ve always wanted to visit Alaska ;-)

    @Tckev:

    Well, we know that time passes at different rates. Especially as things move faster. So stuff falling into a black hole, from our perspective, seems to slow down and halt as a sphere of crud as the time slows for them (from our perspective). From their perspective, they don’t see anything changing at all…

    One of the “odd bits” is the question of “If we were already falling in to a black hole, how would be know?”…

    Well, time for a coffee… back in a bit to read the rest…

  30. George says:

    There seems to be, at the core of things, some misapplication of logic where they believe that something that is IR transparent will not radiate IR when it is heated by conductive means. It certainly will. If I heat a block of salt (IR transparent sodium chloride, for example), it will radiate IR and I can use an IRT to measure its surface temperature. I think that is where the blockage is. They seem to believe that something which does not ABSORB LWIR won’t EMIT it when it is heated by conductive means. But it will and conductive heat transfer is much more efficient than radiation at moving heat. An atmosphere in physical contact with a surface will absorb heat by conduction, then it will convect, then it will radiate that heat away at some point and cool. The thesis relies on the absurd idea that an infrared transparent gas will not radiate heat when warmed. It’s crazy.

  31. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M. : it was simply a ‘local void’ in a larger space filled with more ‘stuff’.
    Yes, as you say, it was local, as it is in very and each developing octave, with two “check valves”. There are many beginnings all the time, and time, or rather “tempo” is subjective: In us it depends on metabolism. The “breath” rhythm of each of us, you will agree, it is by far different from the, for example, Sun´s “breath”´s rhythm:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm

  32. EM, Have not read all but wanted to put some thoughts before they slipped out of my mind. Way back in time when I got my first computer an Apple 11 (I still have the red book), I wrote a spreadsheet program that used the Apple processing to minimise memory. I found that you could “poke” numbers in multiple dimensions and manipulate them with for-to loops. In maths you can have many dimensions. We can see three dimensions and know about a fourth -time. With space observations of things far away we think we can see the past but we only can record an instance and do not really know the changes through time the signal has got to our imprecise measuring point. However, we have no idea what might be taking place in other dimensions. I understand Hawking has mentioned multiple dimensions. I have just started reading “The Shape of Inner Space” by Shing-Tung Yau and Steve Nadis. They mention multi-dimensional holes. I see that they mention that Kaluza and Klein developed a five dimensional theory. String theorists were working on a six dimensional theory. Shing-Tau Yau has proved some generalised theories (He is a winner of the Fields Medal -more prestige than a Nobel prize). I think he says that some dimensions are symetrical and that he comes down to eleven dimensions but I maybe wrong.
    Anyway my thinking is that there can be no singularity from which the “big bang” developed. I am more inclined to an infinite space and continuing disappearance and renewal from dimensions that we can not know.

  33. George says:

    @E.M Smit

    I did note your comment about the stranded economist. I shied away from the thread when it became obvious to me that they were talking about hypotheticals in some parallel universe or something so I haven’t seen many of the subsequent comments. When I tried to point out that there was a difference between temperature and heat and was told that I was “off topic”, I pretty much gave it up. Willis needs to let the shrooms wear off or something.

  34. adolfogiurfa says:

    Life is nature´s trick to overcome entropy
    We do not realize that laws of nature apply also to us, thus we really hallucinate we can reach a higher level of comprehension, of knowledge, as we would be listening through a VLF radio and foolishly hoping, someday, we could hear HFR emissions, without any effort from our part. That´s like dreaming becoming a piano player without practice or worst, without a piano. We won´t accept that easily, but that´s the harsh reality we should take seriously.
    How does water using a “ramp pump” reaches a higher “head”?, it is by
    managing input, while saving water in a container,where “pressure”(the energy level) increases, and by an also controlled output.
    Of course, we have the special ability to deceive ourselves…but, until when?
    “Like attracts like”.

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    @Cementafriend:

    There is an interesting example of multidimensional space. It is as close as your nearest P orbital bound chemical. The P orbital is shaped like a rounded bow tie with the nucleus at the middle. The probability that the electron can be found at any point in that bow tie can be calculated. It can be on either side of the nucleus, BUT, the probability drops to zero AT the mid-line of the atom… So the electron MUST exist on both sides, but never crosses the middle…

    Josephson Junctions are real devices that work based on the ‘quantum tunneling’ that lets real things (like electrons) flow through ‘impossible’ barriers… Might that be due to them going to another dimension for some of the particles for just a while? We wave our hands and say that the wave particle duality let the wave function jump from one side to the other due to ‘uncertainty’. I think it just as possible that their ‘wave function’ spends some of its time in other dimensions and for some of them, that is where they were when encountering the ‘barrier’…

    So is it that the particle has a “quantum moment” and just appears on the other side? Or is it moving through other dimensions? “Good luck with that”…

    Does that mean there can be no ‘big bang’, or just that the connection between the black holes at the end of time and the white hole at the start of time passes through those other dimensions?

    @George:

    I probably ought to look at that thread again too, but in fact, I just tossed my “hypothetical bomb” and ran off… I’m surprised that a discussion of the (critically important!) difference between heat and temperature in an article about heat and temperature would be called ‘off topic’….

    @Adolfo:

    Except “opposites attract’ – see magnetic poles N and S (or magnet vs nonmagnetic iron…)

  36. A. @E.M.Smith (23:36:03) Thank you for your insightful response. I agree: Sin is the root problem. Do you mind if I copy and send your reply to a few friends who have questions similar to mine.

    B. The universe and the fundamental laws that govern it are remarkably simple to this simple-minded experimentalist [1].

    a.) This 2-minute video shows our dynamic cosmos:

    b.) Energized by neutron-repulsion versus gravitational-attraction

    c.) Every atom is a mix of two forms of one fundamental particle:
    __The compacted form: Neutron (N)
    __The expanded form: H-atom (H)

    d.) N => H, as the universe expands and H fills interstellar space.
    e.) H => N, in the reverse cycle of our infinite, cyclic universe.

    1. The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)
    http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html

    PS – The video also AGW dogma by showing that Earth’s real heat source is a gigantic nuclear furnace that made our elements and is still a million times bigger than Earth!

  37. PS – The video denies AGW dogma

  38. George says:

    Oh, there’s more to it than just the heat/temperature thing. Completely ignoring conductive and convective heat transfer was my biggest gripe. It assumes a purely radiative transfer, which it ultimately is from the standpoint of space but where that radiation emits from makes a difference. The atmosphere acts as a coolant for the surface. CO2 actually has about half the thermal conductivity of N2 so the gas makeup makes a difference. But not all the radiation reaching the surface will be radiated from the surface.

  39. E.M.Smith says:

    @Oliver:

    Feel free to copy / send. Nice video….

    There is something elegant about the formula:

    N-> H+ + e-

    At one time, just for fun, I put on the board in chem class (when no one was watching ;-)

    H -> H+ + e-
    Ne -> N+ + e-

    Then waited for someone to notice…. Sadly, nobody seemed to get the humor in it…

    @George:

    Yes… thus my saying it looked like a case of “Given these conclusions what assumptions can I draw?” followed by the unphysical assumptions of a toy world devoid of reality …

    He basically defines a non-existent gas that has the same properties as space then finds that the surface is the same as in space so concludes no gas effect exists… No radiations function? What gas is that…

  40. Pascvaks says:

    I imagine, and hope, that the next humans will have a much better grip on reality as a result of some ‘new’ genetic capability that allows them to more easily seperate fact from fiction. We have the capability to imagine anything and think that anything is possible, and it’s our greatest gift and curse. If we’re ever to get off planet and move on to other star systems I imagine that something has simply got to change;-)

  41. Pascvaks says:

    Imagine an economic system that replicates the human condition, and fosters or retards the best and worst in human nature. (I can’t imagine John Lennon ever sang about it.) Have we been, are we now, moving toward or away from such a system? To me, we seem entranced and bent upon our own destruction. We are spirling into a Black Hole and blissfully unaware. Once again I say, there must be something in the water. (You have to blame someone or something, right? I can’t be our own fault, right?)

  42. Pascvaks says:

    In the “Fundamental Laws of Nature” there is the “Diversion”, there are two types –good and not (actually there are four if you add the “Non-Diversion Diversion” and the self-destructive “Drug Induced Diversion”). The wife recently rented two flicks at an old fashioned “Movie Rental Store” that proved interesting, good, reflective, etc. I didn’t think they made these anymore in “The Wood Where They Worship The Golden Calf”. FWIW, simple, not hard to watch, relaxing in a way “The River Why” and “One Day”.

  43. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: That´s right: You just chose the ultimate fulfillment of entropy: The return to the womb, to the unmanifested. Life is “against the wind” and that´s the purpose of the existence of life: To increase energy, the way of negentropy.

  44. david says:

    Dear Mr. Smith,

    You once said to me, “There you go, making me think again” In consideration of the esteem with which I hold your thought process I felt very complimented. I will endeavor to repeat my past success.

    E.M states…
    Well, putting off the ‘mystery of mysteries’ presumes that there is such a mystery to put off… a premise that is not proven to be…
    —————————————————————————————–
    My response
    IMV, Yes and no. I will attempt to convey that, via the scientific method, the ultimate questions can not be answered, but logically there is a mystery. The mystery of mysteries’ is both a how and a why question. I submit, that the how of “everything inclusive” is not knowable via the scientific method because of the first cause dilemma, but logically “it“ whatever it is, defined as a causeless cause of infinite energy existing beyond space and time, must be. More on this to follow.

    ===============================================
    E.M. states
    “It is always possible that there is no motivational force, that ‘it just is’…
    Our need for a God / Creator does not mandate one to be.
    Is it not just as much “hubris” to presume to pass judgment that a Creator / God *must* exist as to presume that one might not?”
    ————————————————————————————————
    My response…
    I do not think so, Logically some sort of infinite energy beyond space and time, something must exist. Now is that infinite energy, beyond space and time, logically demanded causeless cause, intelligent, kind, benevolent, loving etc, etc? Well that is a different question entirely, and due to the stated qualities of infinite energy beyond space and time, the means of knowing requires a different epistemology then anything within the scientific method, so yes to declare, I know God, is hubris, and by the way, not allowed within the Vedic, Judaic, or Christian tradition, although “knowing” the absolute is considered possible within a different context. More to follow on why it is not hubris, but logical for a causeless cause to exist.
    —————————————————————————————————
    E.M.

    (Me? I take the agnostic position that “I do not know” and either could be. I guess that makes me a ‘field two’ person ;-)
    BTW, there is this road in Alaska that isn’t connected to any other roads… and last time I looked the roads in Hawaii were not connected to those in California ;-)
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Indeed, your agnostic perspective shows your wisdom. This wisdom is rooted in the known limitations of the scientific method as I will try to express. There are no absolutes in relationship to science. I maintain that science is, in its essence, “cause and effect” .Every effect is proceeded by a prior cause. There can be no effect without a prior cause. All causes are themselves an effect. Cause and effect is a chain and it, with the arrow of time, moves in one direction. All causes and effects are quantifiable. In this sense, science to me is the study of how all things in the cosmos interact, and the laws that govern those interactions. Science is constrained to time, space and relativity. Science cannot contain absolutes. A primary tool of science is to use mathematics, one through any number, but never absolute infinity, which is not a number. I am referring to absolutes, and not the use of these terms within RELATIVE fields, often representing exponentially growing signals and negative exponents representing exponentially decreasing signals. I am not referring to time constants (decaying or growing) As such science can only see a part of the whole and must keep an open mind to new information.

    This primary chain of cause and effect observations, (This is the road that connects all roads (-; ) upon which all deductive reason is based, has a self limiting paradox. Simply put, cause and effect cannot be an absolute eternal chain, otherwise one is stating that “everything inclusive” has no cause, it always was, which in and of itself defeats the laws of science and deductive reason applied to observation, and induces the well known paradox that if “everything inclusive “ always was, then everything that could have occurred, already would have, and in effect states the unscientific proposition that while every thing (relative things which can be quantified) in creation have a cause, everything inclusive has no cause, it just unscientifically is. The other side of this paradox is that (accepting the above problem as valid) if there was then a first cause, what ever that cause was had to have no cause and must be beyond the laws of cause and effect. Science, by it very nature, only deals with relativity, quantifying numbers and partial observations which can only see a part of the whole.
    =============================================================
    E.M. cont…
    One other minor point with the numeric cosmology… Have you considered that the set of ordinal numbers is infinite? So your “One and two and…” is in fact an infinite set? If you allow for negative numbers it gets twice as large (yet stays the same…) and then you need to deal with 1/3 ….
    So I would assert that your non-infinite start at one number series is inevitably part of the infinite series. You may want to work out a ‘patch’ for that…

    Then, one can ask, what do you have if you take one, and subtract one from it. Oh Dear… we are back at that zero… So isn’t zero itself part of ‘reality’ once you have ordinal numbers? Either that, or you can not allow 1 minus 1.
    In the end I find the ‘reasoning from numbers’ strewn with such ‘issues’. The tool ought not define the thoughts. The thoughts ought to select the tool. IMHO. So WAS there ever a “void”? Your answer is based on what evidence? We can’t see past the speed of light barrier so have no idea if our ‘universe’ was ever a void (no matter what theory we cook up) or if it was simply a ‘local void’ in a larger space filled with more ‘stuff’.
    We can not know if there was ever a “zero” state.
    We know that there IS a real (number?) state. We know that contained within real numbers is the infinity. ( 1/3 anyone?…) We know that contained within the real numbers is the zero ( 1-1 or 1.00 – 1.00 ). So isn’t it really a bit of an artifice to pull them out to stand alone as gatekeepers? Can we not live in a universe that ranges from:
    Minus Infinity …-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,… Infinity?
    Unadorned
    =====================================================
    My response.
    Hopefully, “working on a patch” for the above, ingenuity is equal to the maze. (-;
    We must define our absolutes, both infinity and nothing. There are no infinities in math or numbers, as infinity is not a number. I am referring to absolutes, and not the use of these terms within RELATIVE fields, often representing exponentially growing signals and negative exponents representing exponentially decreasing signals. Your examples are of such a limited nature which refer to things quantifiable. For instance your zero presented below
    ————————–
    “Then, one can ask, what do you have if you take one, and subtract one from it. Oh Dear… we are back at that zero… So isn’t zero itself part of ‘reality’ once you have ordinal numbers? Either that, or you can not allow 1 minus 1.”
    —————————————————
    Response
    One minus one is not nothing, it is no-thing, it applies to a relative quantifiable object, as in one apple, minus one apple = zero apples. Also this statement…
    ——————————————————
    “ We know that there IS a real (number?) state. We know that contained within real numbers is the infinity. ( 1/3 anyone?…)”
    ——————————————————————–
    is likewise, neither absolute zero, or infinity. 1/3 is 1/3 of what? I/3 of three apples is one apple, the term applies to the relative definition of what the relative whole is. Continuously dividing something forever, a hemi, demi semi, of a hemi demi semi, is still “one” of something, and that “some thing” is still quantifiable and relative.

    Absolute infinity cannot be “contained within” anything, as by it very nature it is beyond any number, and not just a little, but infinitely beyond. No number can approach infinity.
    The ancient Vedic tradition, going back at least five thousand years, had three definitions of infinity, the one used in mathematics today for time constants, one for things practically innumerable, (the grains of sand on the beach, the number of atomic particles in the universe) and one for the absolute, which they well recognized as not being a number and as unapproachable; any number times any other number is infinitely short of infinity, despite the fact that, as you point out, numbers can ever grow. Infinity cannot be circumscribed by any number.

    It would perhaps be helpful if I give the Vedic concept of creation, and just for fun use Judaic and Christian references to illustrate the Vedic viewpoint. (a nice trick if it can be pulled off) The Vedic trinity (Sat Chit Ananda) is as follows; God the Father (logically demanded because things relative and all “things inclusive” must have a cause, they cannot always have been, with no cause. Basic logic rules out a regression ad infinitum, that is, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes and effects) is the absolute, pure spirit, beyond all vibratory creation, the causeless cause, infinite power, beyond time and space. The very translation of Yahweh—”I am”—reveals this claim. If Yahweh did not begin, then he needs no cause. Next is God’s son, (the only pure reflection of and begotten of the Father) the un-manifested absolute, active within creation, (God created all things through Christ.) And third is the Holy Ghost, that same absolute spirit manifesting as creation. ( “And Isaiah looked to the way of the east, and the earth shined with his glory“.) Your presented “And the earth was without form and void is also a presentation of this, also the “And God said” would have been easily understood by an ancient Indian sage to refer to the unmanifested absolute (God) manifesting the vibration less absolute through vibration, “as the word “said” implies.

    It is quiet interesting that the Vedic word for creation, Maya, is Sanskrit for “to measure”
    Paramahansa Yogananda wrote of this.
    “The Vedic scriptures declare that the physical world operates under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and duality. God, the Sole life, is Absolute Unity; to appear as separate and diverse manifestations of a creation He wears a false or unreal veil. That illusory dualistic veil is maya. Many great scientific discoveries of modern times have confirmed this simple pronouncement of the ancient rishis. Newton’s law of motion is a law of Maya: “For every action there is an equal and contrary reaction, the mutual actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely directed.” Action and reaction are thus exactly equal. “To have a single force is impossible. There must be and always is a pair of forces, equally and opposite.”
    Fundamental natural activities all betray their mayic origin. Electricity for example is a phenomena of repulsion and attraction, and protons are electrical opposites. The atom, like the earth it self, is a magnet with positive and negative poles. The entire phenomenal world is under the inexorable sway of polarity. No law of physics, chemistry, or any other science is found free of the inherent opposite or contrasted principles.
    Physical science then cannot formulate laws outside of Maya, the very structure and fabric of creation. Nature herself is maya, natural science must perforce deal with her ineluctable quiddity In her own domain she is eternal and inexhaustible; future scientist can do no more then probe one aspect after another of her varied infinitude. Science thus remains in a perpetual flux, unable to reach finality; fit indeed to discover the laws of an already existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to detect the Law Framer and Sole Operator. The great scientist Marconi stated this admission of scientific inadequacy before the absolute: “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery is absolute.”
    —————————————————————————————————-

    E.M. writes…“Per the regression leading to ‘infinite energy’…
    Well, if ALL the mass of the universe were concentrated in one spot of no-space and no-time just as time and space came into existence… I think we end up with ‘near infinite energy’ ;-)
    —————————————————————————–
    Response
    Well it is not near infinity, it apparently is. I heard a talk from a world renowned astrophysicist. Forgive my poor memory as I do not remember his name as I was working stand-by on a trade show, at the time I was working 80 plus hour weeks, dealing with many other issues, (attorneys, yuck) but the talk was riveting. He talked of this problem and said the math pointed to an impossibility of absolute infinite energy, not the defined time constant kind. He also referenced that all the laws of classic physics and quantum mechanics break down and lose there application. He said it , the singularity, comes from nothing, which he then defined as “no thing“, in essence still something that cannot be measured or quantified, but something which is.

    From him I first learned of the exact requirements needed in the fundamental forces to have a cosmos where things evolve and organize, instead of falling into rapid entropy. Going to the thought of multi verses does not, in my view, diminish this. Yes, one can say our goldilocks universal forces are like throwing paint on a wall, predicting before hand that some spots will be exactly one inch from their nearest neighboring spot, and then finding out that some few actually are, and then determining it false to pretend it is anything but random. But in the incredibly refined requirements of these fundamental forces, it is more like throwing a gallon of paint on a wall, and all the spots end up of the exact same size, shape and exactly the same distance from each other. That requires planning and intelligence, such as in the creation of an ink jet printing machine.

    Additionally multiverses are just a theory, not an observation as is our universe. Furthermore, even if we are one of billions of multiverses, it is pure assumption that those universes have created random forces and they just fail, for all we know they all function just as ours does. The known observations do not fit random happenstance. The argument against the observation is based on theory, and purely speculative assumptions about that theory, IE, Theoretically multi verses could be real, theoretically this reality could be random and they could all fail, therefore our OBSERVATIONS of what appears to be incredibly unlikely intelligent manifestation in this universe, is random chance. It is a logic fail. And finally multiverses, brane theory, cyclic big bang, all do nothing to address the already presented cause dilemma, they just regresses it further, what caused that universe, what caused the one before ours, etc.

    Finally a brief statement on the implied Intelligent design of our universe. Many atheist scientist, upset with past travesties of mankind done in the name of religion, rebel at the word “God”, because of past abuse to control people. I however have made a very vague definition of God as a “eternal and infinite beyond time and space causeless cause. Science deals with phenomena, it takes a different tool for noumena. As such the scientist, realizing that “the 12 inch ruler of his (field two) mind can never measure infinity” can still use his cause effect tools to investigate field three indirectly. How? He can look in field two for a proxy report on the attributes of the infinite energy beyond time and space causeless cause. He can look for evidence of intelligence, and many other qualities. To search for the infinite directly logically requires the conciseness to transcend field two. This is the field of religion. Science and religion are not in conflict. They operate on two different fields, phenomena, the area of science and noumena, the area of religion.

    Yours always (and we know that is a long time (-;
    in gratitude for this forum to share ideas.

  45. tckev says:

    Interesting idea, universe evolving.. We know it does to some extent as several terms are ‘undefined’ as you enter the singularity (from either side ;-) and both time and space have their very definition and existence ‘wink out’…

    Time has been slowing as fast as space is expanding giving us the vastness of todays universe as we can see it. Maybe time is a variable, and the universe has always been the same size if only we could step outside our frame of reference to look at it.

  46. Eric Barnes says:

    George (01:32:23) :

    I pretty much gave it up. Willis needs to let the shrooms wear off or something.

    I think Willis is getting paid per hit. His latest posts are completely rhetorical and devoid of merit IMO.

  47. George says:

    There just isn’t one easy model you can create that explains Earth’s climate. A change in ocean circulation can have a huge impact on land climate. Most of the ocean circulation patterns are due to changes in wind patters, water salinity, and all sorts of other odd things that can’t be modeled. Climate can change dramatically in a sort period and last for centuries and those changes can’t be modeled either. It’s a waste of time. It assumes climate of Earth is naturally stable and predictable and works according to some equation that one might discover that describes it. It doesn’t. We could go into a dramatic cold period next year completely unseen by anyone today.

    It’s a big exercise in mental masturbation, in my opinion.

  48. Pascvaks says:

    “Sunspecks” and “Sunspots” There Otta be A Law!

    For those with a speck or spot of curiosity. Go to –
    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

    Anyone see a couple ‘spots’? Anyone see a lotta’ ‘spots’?
    These ‘spot’ counters are going crazy trying to find spots and they’re now counting ‘specks’ that ain’t spots as ‘spots’.

    Talk about inflation and scientific backsliding and seeing things where nothing exists. Just because the Solar Flux goes up and down, these ‘Spotbozos’ apparently think they have to creat something out of nothing.

    I still think that before the Ol Soviets went bye bye they put something in the water. No other explaination for it. The West is toast! (and getting toastier by the day;-)

  49. adolfogiurfa says:

    @David: You are entirely right. If your name corresponds to your religion, then you know all the “mechanics” or the functioning of the universe is contained in the four letters of Yahveh. The traditional knowledge of the Kabbalah really is a complete cosmology. You say:
    because of the first cause dilemma, but logically “it“ whatever it is, defined as a causeless cause of infinite energy existing beyond space and time, must be.
    We do not need to go that far away, as there would be nearer and closer “absolutes” relative to us. Reality, as relativity concept affirms, repeats itself in each “dimension” (size) developing the same laws which you just have described: The Law of the triad complements through manifestation with the Law of seven, or the octave, where input/output act at the “gaps” of the musical scale, which is a scale of frequencies, the whole spectrum.
    As we see and feel a tiny part of it, our “science”, most of the time chooses to ignore the rest of it. “We are what we see” and if we work in a very low and improper level of energy, how in the world are we going to perceive or, worst, dare to understand what is far, far away from our grasp.

  50. Pascvaks says:

    @adolfo –
    Consider the size of the universe, the one we think we know

    –it used to be a ‘big rock in a big puddle’ on the back of a turtle
    –it used to be Earth Centered with a light for the day and one for the night
    –it used to be the Sun Centered Solar System
    –it used to be the MilkyWay
    –it used to be the Local Group
    –it’s recently been something like a Bubble that may or may not have started with a Big Bang
    –it seems to be growing into a Bigger Bubble (or whatever) full of little Bubbles, one of which we used to call the Universe

    Strange isn’t it, the more we learn the smaller we get? We better stop going to school before we totally disappear;-)

  51. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Pascvaks: Really! :-) Taking into account such a dimensional accountability we worth nothing, really for us, the Absolute would be, comparatively to our energy level, the center of our Galaxy.
    However, if you want, anytime, to watch a whole Universe from the outside, just go to the closest mirror you have and look at it.!!!.
    Its smooth metal surface reflects all the existing fields back to its source.

  52. Curt says:

    George,

    I hope you realize that you are effectively claiming that students in every university in the country — in physical chemistry, radiation physics, quantum mechanics, and engineering heat transfer and thermodynamics classes (all unrelated to climate science) — are being taught wrong when they are taught Kirchhoff’s law or thermal radiation, which says that emissivity and absorbtivity of any substance at any wavelength are equal. If a substance cannot absorb radiation at a given wavelength or range of wavelengths, it cannot emit radiation at that wavelength or range of wavelengths. And it does not matter at all how the substance was heated to its present temperature.

    These things have been verified in the lab (unlike much of climate science) many times. N2 and O2 do not absorb or emit in the thermal infrared wavelength band.

    I find it ironic that you use NaCl as an example. Arrhenius originally got sensitivity values for increased CO2 concentration because he used wrong infrared optical properties for NaCl, including the assumption of its complete transparency throughout the thermal infrared band.

  53. Eric Barnes says:

    George (21:44:42) :
    Earth’s atmosphere is a fluid, GHG’s notwithstanding. Heat transfer occurs by many means, radiation the LEAST among them.

    Great explanation George. :)

  54. R. de Haan says:

    @Oliver K. Manuel (16:04:26) :
    @E.M. Smith (19:35:58)

    “Please respond to this question, even if you delete it as being off-topic:

    The current demise of society seems to have at least three major roots:

    1. Sciences, including the most fundamental laws of nature
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
    http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html

    2. Social, especially the use of drugs to subjugate nations.

    3. Economics, the economies of formerly Western nations are collapsing”.

    =========================================================
    Decentralization only economic solution left
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-decentralization-only-plausible-economic-solution-left

  55. @R. de Haan (16:47:33)

    Thanks for the link. I understand too little about economics to know if decentralization is the solution. But I suspect fear-driven selfishness (sin) is to the root problem in economics, as it is in physical sciences.

    Click to access Summary_of_Career.pdf

    Fears limit us to myopic, self-centered, short-term views of reality.

    We use limited information on reality and extrapolate to whatever conclusion we want. E.g.,

    1. Fact: The surface of the Sun is 91% H, 9% He.
    Factual Lie: The interior of the Sun is 91% H, 9% He.

    2. Fact: The universe seems to be expanding.
    Factual Lie: The universe started with a Bang.

    3. Fact: Sea ice seems to be melting.
    Factual LIe: Global temperatures are increasing

    Jeff Id just posted videos that show reality for item #3:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/improved-sea-ice-videos/

  56. adolfogiurfa says:

    @R.de Haan: Great article1 If you have access to property, can grow your own food, and have water collection capability, then you are far ahead of the average American in many respects
    That´s why “they” promoted “land reform” everywhere and now are buying all the land they can (As “Al Baby” is doing it in Africa,etc). It served two purposes: To decapitate local societies, ruining their former elites, to be replaced, after 20 years or so, by new dependent “elites” not having any land property which, after land reform disappears is owned by the speculative elites through international corporations . This is the task now of dictator Chavez in Venezuela, after the same was done in Peru in 1960´s (when Chavez was a student at the Peruvian Military School). I am sure that Chavez himself ignores that, he just enjoys the silly retributions he receives for his service: As a different woman each night and all its associated distractions.
    BTW Don´t forget Land Reform was one of the first measures taken by the invading US troops in Italy, during WWII. So everything fits.
    This is a real “turning of the screw”, as it was the former, during the French Revolution…I think it is “up to the stars”: That new turn will be developing a new level of an evolving spiral, but this time “changing phase”, thus the outcome will take us back to some political structures resembling the old ones, but this time with all the technological (electrical) paraphernalia added.

  57. adolfogiurfa says:

    Decentralization was thought to “optimize” markets, to increase them, and globalization to optimize profits, reaching clients all over the world freed from commerce barriers, however it did not distribute things harmonically and some countries became just “Big Malls countries”, like the USA, which is weird, to say the least and it is not longer sustainable.
    “They” have now moved their main “offices”to Shanghai, China….which is too risky and funny, at the same time. Any time they could have their old heads suddenly removed…
    Well…Buy more popcorn! I suspect this is what 2012 and the Mayan calendar is all about! :-)

  58. George says:

    When we get an atmosphere of this mythical substance that emits no IR when heated, let me know. Actually, let me know when anyplace gets one or when we discover a material that will not cool by radiation when it has been heated.

    These odd exercises in fantasy thought have little use, in my opinion, unless you simply want to find an absolute maximum possible value for something. It has no relation to the real world in which we live. If you are going to take a sphere and surround it with a spherical array of tiny suns evenly distributed then you might as well just take a flat plane with an emitter above it. Doesn’t need to be a sphere in that case.

    Assuming the system starts at absolute zero and the atmosphere is frozen on the surface, what happens first when the energy source is switched on is that the atmosphere begins to “charge” with heat almost like a capacitor in an electrical circuit. First it will evaporate and begin to expand. The surface of the plane will be below the theoretical temperature while the atmosphere is absorbing heat. Once the atmosphere at the surface reaches the same temperature as the surface, convection will stop. We will assume that this system has no way of removing heat from the atmosphere due to radiation into space (which is physically impossible, I know of no such substance). At this point the surface of the plate begins to warm some more and there will be a bit more convection until the plate eventually heats to its theoretical black body temperature. But there is more “heat” in the system than just on the plate. The atmosphere is now charged with heat energy. The temperature at the top will be whatever the adiabatic lapse rate of the atmosphere places it. Now I suppose we are assuming also that the atmosphere is also transparent to ALL wavelengths, not just IR because otherwise the top of it would heat due to UV radiation and raise the temperature at the top as happens on Earth. This would cause a barrier to convection at this temperature inversion (the tropopause) boundary. That warm air is going to contact the cooler air below and try to warm it, so the adiabatic lapse rate also works in reverse. That heat from the top of the atmosphere will be conducted downward according to the thermal conductivity of that atmosphere and that will raise the surface temperature above the theoretical. So you can get warming from the bottom up but you can also get warming from the top down. It takes a lot longer, though to heat against convection (which is why it is so hard to heat the ocean from warm surface temperatures but very easy to cool it). Now if we suddenly dial back the UV, the top of the atmosphere cools, and we get convective overturning to equalize the temperature until it comes back into equilibrium at the new temperature.

    It is really hard to heat a container of a fluid with a conventional response to heat (expansion) from the top. It is very easy to cool it, though, because as soon as you cool the surface, the fluid falls and is replaced by warmer fluid from below eventually cooling the entire container by convective overturning. When you warm it, though, the warm fluid remains on the surface and only conductivity can heat the fluid below. That is why if you want to heat something, you heat it from the bottom. But cooling is more effective from the top.

  59. George says:

    So in other words, the atmosphere will act as something of a thermal flywheel. If you crank up the output of the emitter, there will be some lag in temperature rise until the atmosphere is “charged” to the higher energy level.

    If you reduce the level of the emitter, though, cooling would happen more slowly because, if you imagine that the emitter was shut completely off, the atmopshere still contains a lot of heat which it can not shed via radiation. So the atmosphere near the surface would cool into the surface once the surface radiated its heat away. But now we don’t get any convective overturning. What would happen is that the surface would continue to cool and the atmosphere would try to warm it by thermal conductivity and as it does so the atmosphere would contract. But conductivity is slow in most gasses. At some point the gas next to the surface would reach its condensation point and condense. As it condenses it will release its latent heat into the surface which will radiate that heat away. So as the atmosphere condenses and eventually freezes, it will “discharge” the heat that it held before. I am also assuming that the condensate and the solid forms of the atmosphere are IR transparent, as well. But it will likely take longer to condense than it took to heat because the condensation phase is working against convection and has only conductivity to work with.

  60. Curt says:

    George,

    It is standard practice in thermodynamic analysis to consider the equilibrium case first. If you can’t get that right, you have no hope of getting the dynamic cases right. That’s what is being done here. Even though you object, you are implicitly accepting this form of analysis as you start to talk about small perturbations from equilibrium, which is typically the next step in this type of analysis.

    You say, “When we get an atmosphere of this mythical substance that emits no IR when heated, let me know. Actually, let me know when anyplace gets one or when we discover a material that will not cool by radiation when it has been heated.” How about N2, O2, and Ar, which form about 99% of our atmosphere? These gases have no emission/absorption bands in the thermal infrared bands for earth’s temperatures. So “when heated” within these temperature ranges, they will not emit IR.

    As you note, when the temperature of the bottom of this atmosphere reaches the same temperature as the surface (whether it had been hotter or colder), conduction between the surface and the atmosphere stops. When the atmosphere itself equilibrates, convection stops. At this point, the only energy transfer mechanisms are solar radiation from outer space to the surface, and thermal IR radiation from the surface to outer space, both traveling through an atmosphere that is transparent to those wavelengths (and an atmosphere of N2, O2, and Ar is essentially such an atmosphere).

    Why bother with this unrealistic equilibrium case? Well, it is an easy way to rule out a theory. If the theory cannot get it right in this simple case (and I’m not talking about roundoff errors), game over. There is no need to go any further.

  61. George says:

    “How about N2, O2, and Ar, which form about 99% of our atmosphere? These gases have no emission/absorption bands in the thermal infrared bands for earth’s temperatures. So “when heated” within these temperature ranges, they will not emit IR.”

    Uhm, not so, I don’t think.

    Also, the ration of absorptivity to emissivity changes with temperature and pressure. For example, a substance can become more absorptive and less emissive or vice versa as its temperature and pressure change. Its spectrum will also change with pressure. For example, the emissivity of CO2 is cut by about half at 0.3 bar pressure. But note here that Nitrogen will emit in the shorter IR spectrum. So to say something doesn’t radiate LWIR does not mean it doesn’t radiate! So in this case an atmosphere of nitrogen would absorb heat by conduction and radiate it as SWIR:

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/78951

    And I know the IR emission of both Nitrogen and Oxygen have been studied:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Infrared_electronic_emission_spectrum_of.html?id=vRnnNwAACAAJ

    I don’t think I know of a material that once heated will not cool. It will radiate SOMETHING even if not in the LWIR spectrum. And as I mentioned, the ratio of emissivity to absorptivity changes and can be positive or negative depending on temperature and pressure so something that is a net absorber of radiation and warms when exposed to IR can go to a net emitter (more emissive than absorptive).

  62. George says:

    My point is that an atmosphere will warm by conduction and it will “want” to cool off. Where it emits the radiation will depend on the material, but it will cool. Things don’t “want” to stay hot. Entropy and all that.

  63. R. de Haan says:

    adolfogiurfa (19:59:39)
    Buy more popcorn! I suspect this is what 2012 and the Mayan calendar is all about! :-)

    Although I have no affinity with the Mayan Calendar hubris I agree with your assessment that 2012 will be a year full of surprises.
    Entertaining because we will see the end of the Euro experiment, the possible exit of Germany and very hard times for the Greek, the Italians, etc.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/germany’s-fed-and-getting-ready-walk

    However, the EU won’t die and the agenda will remain intact because the people at this moment in time are not prepared to take out the tar and feathers to provide the EU leadership with the treatment they deserve.

    Same in the US where people have a fair chance to elect another President but unfortunately will put their cards on the wrong candidate.

    The inevitable result will be war waged in accord with the agenda which will accelerate it’s execution.

    And that’s a prospect I don’t like at all.

  64. R. de Haan says:

    @George

    Just for your information:
    Nikolov and Zeller reply to comments:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

    They too start with the equilibrium case to make their point.
    It looks like an inevitable opening to explain anything these day’s.

    Just read the PDF here:

    Click to access utc_blog_reply_part1.pdf

    Interesting stuff.

  65. George says:

    I guess the entire point is that the entire topic is a complete waste of time. Who cares? For what good reason should one spend even 5 minutes thinking about it unless it is just because it feels good? There is no reason to worry about that than there is to worry about the climate of pluto. There is no catastrophe there is no urgent crisis. I suppose I could set about wondering what temperature the middle of my livingroom ceiling would reach in case there is a fire in the house, but it would be an exercise only of amusement and only to be done if I had nothing else better to do.

    That is, I suppose, the crux of my annoyance with the whole thing. As someone else mentioned, it is like arguing about angels on a pin and just about as meaningful.

  66. david says:

    George (22:16:25) :

    My point is that an atmosphere will warm by conduction and it will “want” to cool off. Where it emits the radiation will depend on the material, but it will cool. Things don’t “want” to stay hot. Entropy and all that.
    —————————————————
    My understanding would increase with a better grasp of what ultimately happens as conducted specfic heat propagates to the TOA, and finally exits the earth’s atmosphere, It sounds to me like conducted specific heat in a non radiating GHG can only keep moving the energy back and forth through the atmosphere conductively, until that energy conducts to a material which radiates in the LWIR, this could be back the surface, (much like GHG radiates back to the surface) this could be conducted energy to GHGs, primarily water vapor, this could be any number of particles within the atmosphere.

    Thinking about it the surface is recieving 100% of whatever is left from the TSI which reaches it, plus all the conducted flow from non GHGs in contact with it, which is probably more specific heat then the back radiated GHG. Furthermore, upwelling longwave radiation from the surface can energise a GHG, say water vapor, which can then conduct to a non GHG, which in theory can then conduct back to the ground, “backconduction”!!

    BTW, this is purely academic to me as the C is missing in CAGW. It is emotional because of people’s attachment to their ideas.

  67. R. de Haan says:

    “BTW, this is purely academic to me as the C is missing in CAGW. It is emotional because of people’s attachment to their ideas.”

    Which is all caused by the presentation of BAD SCIENCE.becoming common knowledge
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-bad-science-becomes-common.html

  68. Pingback: Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them « Tallbloke's Talkshop

  69. Laurence M. Sheehan, PE says:

    The “dredead” 400 ppm of CO2 can be reduced by a bit of math to 40 molecules of CO2 amid 99,960 molecules of almost entirely first N2 and then O2.

    Even if there were a bit of daytime warming of CO2, that warming of only 40 molecules of CO2 could have no measurable effect on the aggragate temperature of the other 99,960 other molecules, even though the specific heat capacity of CO2 is a bit larger than that of either N2 or O2.

    A bit of math and a lot of knowledge of the fundamentals of chemistry, any one?

  70. Laurence M. Sheehan, PE says:

    Had there been a “big bang”, and an expanding universe, we could easily by plotting, determine well the point in space where it occured.

    Further, keeping in mind that the light we see now of stars is a matter of where the stars were when the light from them we see now was emitted, the view of the stars we see as of now would be completely different than it is.

    Granted that I have a rather extreme sense of spatial visuality, I would have to have a chalk-board to demonstrate this.

  71. Pascvaks says:

    @Laurence M. Sheehan, PE (07:04:50) :
    “Had there been a “big bang”, and an expanding universe, we could easily by plotting, determine well the point in space where it occured.”

    Please don’t say anymore! I’m too old to have to re-learn how everything came to be and works so well without me lifting a finger. So far the “Let there be light!” in Genesis seems still pretty right. Wonder how they came up with that way back when? Why didn’t they say, “Let there be water!” first? But to say “Light!”, and here a few thousand years later it seems “Light!” would be right with a Big Something (be it a Bang or a wimper). If one of the creation stories in Genesis hadn’t been so close to the mark, I don’t know what I’d wonder about now in my old age. As I approach eternity, I’m really curious how much of the old mumbo-jumbo was right. The older I get the more I like Fairy Tales, Maybe the saying that ‘Life is a Circle’ is right;-)

  72. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Laurence M. Sheehan,

    Of course the Universe we see out there it was born someday in the past, however, at the same time, the “universe” as a totality must be immortal.
    If you want to see a Universe from the outside just go to the nearest mirror and look yourself on it. Thus, “universes” can be “he” universes and “she” universes. Life is Nature´s trick for overcoming entropy. Man (life) is the “crossing point” in the eternity of a Möbius strip or a Klein´s bottle.

Comments are closed.