Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
Hyperphysics Fails at Basic Science, Logic, Reasoning, and Math
Published on November 22, 2021
Written by Joseph Postma
As we all know and have seen it a million times, how ambiguity and double-language cognitive dissonance is inserted right at the very beginning. The very foundation of Climate Science is that of cognitive dissonance…it is entirely predicated upon it.
From HyperPhysics on the “Greenhouse Effect”:
So, they’re saying that we have two different effects here (convection vs. radiation), but which are named the same thing, and the second thing (the radiative greenhouse effect RGHE) is only named as such in analogy in “common usage” to the first thing (convective stoppage greenhouse effect).
However: given that the second thing (radiation) also exists in the object (the greenhouse), given that radiation exists everywhere and the roof of the greenhouse has near-unit emissivity thus providing full backradiation or “trapping” of infrared just like the atmosphere is said to, but here doesn’t cause the first thing although it should cause the first thing if it exists in the object, which it does, then how can it be known to exist?
It thus seems to have a selective existence where, somehow, it only acts in certain places and not others.
Presumably, then, given the two different contexts suggested, somehow the open air of the free atmosphere allows the second thing to exist, whereas the trapped air of the greenhouse stops the second thing from existing even though the second thing is present and there is no identifiable mechanism to stop it from expressing its effect.
Somehow, then, “trapped air” stops backradiation and trapped radiation from acting to increase temperature, whereas “open air” allows backradiation and trapped radiation to do so…although there is no known explanation provided or otherwise to explain why or how this difference could be so.
Aside from climate scientists and most scientists being happy with this obvious state of cognitive dissonance and illogic, to the rest of us who are alive we note a blatant conflict of basic logic here. Thus, we must examine whether the conditions of where second thing (RGHE) is claimed to occur might actually have another explanation, since the logic of the second thing (arbitrary selective existence of the RGHE) is unsound.
And so: What is the phenomena which the second thing (RGHE) wishes to explain? Of course, it is that the bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the expected average temperature.
Ahhh…but wait, we do have an alternative explanation for this phenomenon, which is well-grounded in physics and mathematical law and logic, which doesn’t suffer from selective existence. And that thing is:
Firstly: The natural adiabatic lapse rate of the temperature as a function of altitude of a gas in a gravitational field.
Since average temperature must be something which applies to the entire ensemble whose average is being represented, by definition, then by mathematical law, if the ensemble has a sequential distribution of temperature along some dimension then the average of the temperature cannot be found at an extremity of the distribution, but must physically occur somewhere in the middle.
Secondly: One must note the fact that the system isn’t heated at the temperature of the ensemble average, but is in fact heated at and to a much higher temperature at a specific location in the ensemble. That is, the Sun heats the infinitesimal slice of the ensemble, the ground surface, at and to much higher temperature than the expected average of the entire ensemble.
One location of the ensemble is heated to very high temperature and heat dissipates away from this location to the rest of the ensemble, where lower temperatures then occur, which taken together then produce the expected average.
Thus, given that the surface is where the heating actually takes place, and this heating must be of much higher temperature input that the average of the ensemble, then of course once again logically and mathematically the place where the heat is transferred must be higher in temperature than the average of the rest of the ensemble.
And so the cognitive dissonance, if it would be recognized as being importantly indicating error rather than celebrated as meaningful truth, can be and is resolved with basic preexisting facts about the nature of reality and mathematics and physics.
But scientists hate logic, reason, mathematics, physics, and reality. They truly must be said to hate all of these things. And so in fact all of their logic is founded in the extrapolation of flat Earth theory into physics, and the illogic of flat Earth theory goes on to infect their comprehension (lack thereof) of how the Sun interacts with the Earth and thus the basic features of the climate.
It is all truly so simple how the logic goes together, or rather how the foundational illogic goes to create more particular illogic. But like I said…since scientists hate logic, then they by consequence LOVE flat Earth theory and its illogical extrapolations. Strange!
Here is Scenario 1 (a real greenhouse) with Phenomenon A depicted (the greenhouse effect of convective stoppage (GHE)):
Now here is the same Scenario 1 (a real greenhouse) with Phenomenon B depicted (the radiative greenhouse effect RHGE):
However, Phenomenon B does not manifest its action in Scenario 1, although we cannot explain why it should not manifest. Phenomenon B seems to have some selective existence. The only potential explanation we would have for this selectivity is that, in the atmosphere where it is said to occur, the air is “free and open” and not stopped from convecting.
How this difference could stop Phenomenon B from expressing its effect with trapped air is unclear since the effect of radiation doesn’t depend upon if the gas is free or trapped, and in fact the effect of the radiation RGHE should be more apparent if the gas were trapped since this would stop the gas from easily losing the effect of its increased temperature, but we must provisionally go with it since this is what is being asked of us.
And so Phenomenon B must only be able to exert its action in open air since this is where it is said to occur. Thus, if the greenhouse’s ceiling were removed, this would nullify Phenomenon A (the convective stoppage greenhouse effect), but then it would allow Phenomenon B the RGHE to begin to have its effect. And that effect would be to make the greenhouse warmer than the temperature at which it is being heated.
But one can only accept that this is the explanation and state of things if they’re willing to accept the cognitive dissonance and illogic that a physical phenomenon is selectively manifest under arbitrary conditions. Why should backradiation or trapped radiation only be able to cause temperature increase for a gas which is uncontained? Can backradiation radiation trapping not warm a contained gas?
In the depiction of Phenomenon B, the roof serves the exact same role as the atmosphere in the explanation of the open-air RGHE – that is, it traps radiation or causes backradiation. So the conditions are the same: in the open air, the backradiation or radiation trapping from the atmosphere causes temperature increase.
How can backradiation or trapped radiation not cause temperature for a gas which is contained? Besides, isn’t the atmosphere contained in any case upon the Earth?
As you can see, you can only accept the RGHE if you are willing to accept cognitive dissonance in the myriad immediately-following contradictions to basic logic and science and mathematics, and are happy to leave them unresolved as arbitrarily selective effects.
Climate science is the perfect science of cognitive dissonance double-speak!
And now, thanks to scientists hating logic and reason, we bury air under the ground because this is thought to be good for the environment because of flat Earth theory.
And not just the air, but the particular part of the air which makes plants grow, which is the basis life molecule, which the biosphere is currently starved of…yes…THAT part of the air is the air we should bury under the ground, because this is good for plants and animals and the weather.
I swear, we’re simply being trolled by some alien entity.
We’re being trolled…and we’re going to be made to destroy our own biosphere under the pretense of saving it from itself and what creates it!
Can you not see the humor in this? You gotta admit, it is funny.
See more here: climateofsophistry.com
https://principia-scientific.com/hyperphysics-fails-at-basic-science-logic-reasoning-and-math/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Thanks to: https://principia-scientific.com
Published on November 22, 2021
Written by Joseph Postma
As we all know and have seen it a million times, how ambiguity and double-language cognitive dissonance is inserted right at the very beginning. The very foundation of Climate Science is that of cognitive dissonance…it is entirely predicated upon it.
From HyperPhysics on the “Greenhouse Effect”:
Because: what is claimed to work in the atmosphere by analogy, should in fact also work by direct effect in an actual greenhouse!“A major part of the efficiency of the heating of an actual greenhouse is the trapping of the air so that the energy is not lost by convection. Keeping the hot air from escaping out the top is part of the practical “greenhouse effect”, but it is common usage to refer to the infrared trapping as the “greenhouse effect” in atmospheric applications where the air trapping is not applicable.”
So, they’re saying that we have two different effects here (convection vs. radiation), but which are named the same thing, and the second thing (the radiative greenhouse effect RGHE) is only named as such in analogy in “common usage” to the first thing (convective stoppage greenhouse effect).
However: given that the second thing (radiation) also exists in the object (the greenhouse), given that radiation exists everywhere and the roof of the greenhouse has near-unit emissivity thus providing full backradiation or “trapping” of infrared just like the atmosphere is said to, but here doesn’t cause the first thing although it should cause the first thing if it exists in the object, which it does, then how can it be known to exist?
It thus seems to have a selective existence where, somehow, it only acts in certain places and not others.
Presumably, then, given the two different contexts suggested, somehow the open air of the free atmosphere allows the second thing to exist, whereas the trapped air of the greenhouse stops the second thing from existing even though the second thing is present and there is no identifiable mechanism to stop it from expressing its effect.
Somehow, then, “trapped air” stops backradiation and trapped radiation from acting to increase temperature, whereas “open air” allows backradiation and trapped radiation to do so…although there is no known explanation provided or otherwise to explain why or how this difference could be so.
Aside from climate scientists and most scientists being happy with this obvious state of cognitive dissonance and illogic, to the rest of us who are alive we note a blatant conflict of basic logic here. Thus, we must examine whether the conditions of where second thing (RGHE) is claimed to occur might actually have another explanation, since the logic of the second thing (arbitrary selective existence of the RGHE) is unsound.
And so: What is the phenomena which the second thing (RGHE) wishes to explain? Of course, it is that the bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the expected average temperature.
Ahhh…but wait, we do have an alternative explanation for this phenomenon, which is well-grounded in physics and mathematical law and logic, which doesn’t suffer from selective existence. And that thing is:
Firstly: The natural adiabatic lapse rate of the temperature as a function of altitude of a gas in a gravitational field.
Since average temperature must be something which applies to the entire ensemble whose average is being represented, by definition, then by mathematical law, if the ensemble has a sequential distribution of temperature along some dimension then the average of the temperature cannot be found at an extremity of the distribution, but must physically occur somewhere in the middle.
Secondly: One must note the fact that the system isn’t heated at the temperature of the ensemble average, but is in fact heated at and to a much higher temperature at a specific location in the ensemble. That is, the Sun heats the infinitesimal slice of the ensemble, the ground surface, at and to much higher temperature than the expected average of the entire ensemble.
One location of the ensemble is heated to very high temperature and heat dissipates away from this location to the rest of the ensemble, where lower temperatures then occur, which taken together then produce the expected average.
Thus, given that the surface is where the heating actually takes place, and this heating must be of much higher temperature input that the average of the ensemble, then of course once again logically and mathematically the place where the heat is transferred must be higher in temperature than the average of the rest of the ensemble.
And so the cognitive dissonance, if it would be recognized as being importantly indicating error rather than celebrated as meaningful truth, can be and is resolved with basic preexisting facts about the nature of reality and mathematics and physics.
But scientists hate logic, reason, mathematics, physics, and reality. They truly must be said to hate all of these things. And so in fact all of their logic is founded in the extrapolation of flat Earth theory into physics, and the illogic of flat Earth theory goes on to infect their comprehension (lack thereof) of how the Sun interacts with the Earth and thus the basic features of the climate.
It is all truly so simple how the logic goes together, or rather how the foundational illogic goes to create more particular illogic. But like I said…since scientists hate logic, then they by consequence LOVE flat Earth theory and its illogical extrapolations. Strange!
Here is Scenario 1 (a real greenhouse) with Phenomenon A depicted (the greenhouse effect of convective stoppage (GHE)):
Now here is the same Scenario 1 (a real greenhouse) with Phenomenon B depicted (the radiative greenhouse effect RHGE):
However, Phenomenon B does not manifest its action in Scenario 1, although we cannot explain why it should not manifest. Phenomenon B seems to have some selective existence. The only potential explanation we would have for this selectivity is that, in the atmosphere where it is said to occur, the air is “free and open” and not stopped from convecting.
How this difference could stop Phenomenon B from expressing its effect with trapped air is unclear since the effect of radiation doesn’t depend upon if the gas is free or trapped, and in fact the effect of the radiation RGHE should be more apparent if the gas were trapped since this would stop the gas from easily losing the effect of its increased temperature, but we must provisionally go with it since this is what is being asked of us.
And so Phenomenon B must only be able to exert its action in open air since this is where it is said to occur. Thus, if the greenhouse’s ceiling were removed, this would nullify Phenomenon A (the convective stoppage greenhouse effect), but then it would allow Phenomenon B the RGHE to begin to have its effect. And that effect would be to make the greenhouse warmer than the temperature at which it is being heated.
But one can only accept that this is the explanation and state of things if they’re willing to accept the cognitive dissonance and illogic that a physical phenomenon is selectively manifest under arbitrary conditions. Why should backradiation or trapped radiation only be able to cause temperature increase for a gas which is uncontained? Can backradiation radiation trapping not warm a contained gas?
In the depiction of Phenomenon B, the roof serves the exact same role as the atmosphere in the explanation of the open-air RGHE – that is, it traps radiation or causes backradiation. So the conditions are the same: in the open air, the backradiation or radiation trapping from the atmosphere causes temperature increase.
How can backradiation or trapped radiation not cause temperature for a gas which is contained? Besides, isn’t the atmosphere contained in any case upon the Earth?
As you can see, you can only accept the RGHE if you are willing to accept cognitive dissonance in the myriad immediately-following contradictions to basic logic and science and mathematics, and are happy to leave them unresolved as arbitrarily selective effects.
Climate science is the perfect science of cognitive dissonance double-speak!
And now, thanks to scientists hating logic and reason, we bury air under the ground because this is thought to be good for the environment because of flat Earth theory.
And not just the air, but the particular part of the air which makes plants grow, which is the basis life molecule, which the biosphere is currently starved of…yes…THAT part of the air is the air we should bury under the ground, because this is good for plants and animals and the weather.
I swear, we’re simply being trolled by some alien entity.
We’re being trolled…and we’re going to be made to destroy our own biosphere under the pretense of saving it from itself and what creates it!
Can you not see the humor in this? You gotta admit, it is funny.
See more here: climateofsophistry.com
https://principia-scientific.com/hyperphysics-fails-at-basic-science-logic-reasoning-and-math/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Thanks to: https://principia-scientific.com
