04 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidTime dilation may happen just like I have been saying all along. I'm not claiming it is wrong. I'm claiming there are skeptics that claim other factors may affect atomic clock time. If that is true there is reason to doubt the results.
@Metal-Brain
Continuing in your contrarian ways. Who is next? Newton? Hawking? You must be having a field day sending out BS anti this and anti that crap when such things as SR has been shown in labs to be absolutely correct, if you go faster, your version of time goes slower. FACT jack.
Remember, if time dilation is wrong then countless posts of mine on this forum are wrong. I have no self serving reason to bring it up. I am merely searching for the truth and you need to be more open minded.
Your mind is like a parachute. It only functions when it is open.
04 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidYes, they are like just like the climate sceptics and the round-Earth sceptics; They are all wrong. You get sceptics for just about every scientific fact. That doesn't cast rational doubt on the scientific fact.
Time dilation may happen just like I have been saying all along. I'm not claiming it is wrong. I'm claiming there are skeptics that claim other factors may affect atomic clock time.
@humy saidThere is no such thing as a climate skeptic. All people believe in climate.
Yes, they are like just like the climate sceptics and the round-Earth sceptics; They are all wrong. You get sceptics for just about every scientific fact. That doesn't cast rational doubt on the scientific fact.
Everyone is a skeptic about something. It all depends what they are being skeptical about. Some people falsely claim I deny global warming. Global warming is real so I am not skeptical about that.
You cannot just group all skeptics into one category and say they are wrong. Not all skeptics agree on the same things. You are just spewing nonsensical rhetoric.
Calling something a fact does not make it one just because you believe it. You have to prove it is a fact.
Your mind is like a parachute. It only functions when it is open.
@metal-brain saidYou know what I meant.
There is no such thing as a climate skeptic. All people believe in climate.
When we say "climate skeptic" we OBVIOUSLY mean a skeptic of man being the cause of the more recent warming of climate and you know it.
04 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidYou still deny the science that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I never denied that man is a factor.
05 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidHow do you do science? What experiment would be convincing in this matter?
No. It is a greenhouse gas in a lab experiment. The atmosphere is not a lab experiment. It doesn't prove anything.
Assumptions are not how you do science.
05 Dec 19
@wildgrass saidI do not know of one. With methane increasing along with CO2 as it always has does not make it easy to know which is contributing more. It is entirely possible that methane is causing warming in the atmosphere and not co2. It could be both or neither.
How do you do science? What experiment would be convincing in this matter?
CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Tripling next to nothing is still close to nothing. The amount of warming that could cause is likely negligible if at all. Sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate. The data does not support the hypothesis of alarming man made GW. Global warming is real, but still mostly from natural causes. Sea level data confirms that. You are simply in denial of it.
@metal-brain saidAre your claiming the laws of physics outside the lab are different from inside the lab?
No. It is a greenhouse gas in a lab experiment. The atmosphere is not a lab experiment.
For example, do you deny CO2 absorbs infrared outside the lab like observed inside the lab and exactly as predicted by quantum mechanics?
If so;
Exactly what condition in this case do you claim is different inside the lab from outside the lab that it such that it makes CO2 absorb infrared inside that lab but not outside the lab?
For example, is it the laws of quantum mechanics that are different? If so, which one? And exactly HOW so?
How do you explain the data (which we have already shown you) from direct measurements outside the lab that show CO2 absorbing infrared at exactly the same wavelengths and by the same amount as from CO2 inside that lab?
If not;
The laws of thermodynamics imply the infrared energy so absorbed must be converted into conductive heat energy and thus cause warming.
Do you deny this?
If so, exactly which part?
Please just for once TELL and explain, which so far you haven't, to all us stupid science-ignorant science experts here your enlightened clever and EXACT theory on this in DETAIL so at last for the first time we can understand ...
05 Dec 19
@humy saidIn other words, you have no proof I am wrong.
Are your claiming the laws of physics outside the lab are different from inside the lab?
For example, do you deny CO2 absorbs infrared outside the lab like observed inside the lab and exactly as predicted by quantum mechanics?
If so;
Exactly what condition in this case do you claim is different inside the lab from outside the lab that it such that it makes CO2 absorb infr ...[text shortened]... tened clever and EXACT theory on this in DETAIL so at last for the first time we can understand ...
Next.
@metal-brain saidYou aren't fooling anyone here;
In other words, you have no proof I am wrong.
You have answered none of my questions thus you haven't explained your theory of how CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas DESPITE the overwhelming evidence that it is unless we assume to absurdity that the said relevant known laws of physics are wrong.
The fact you refuse to explain your theory to us of how CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas despite the evidence and the known laws of physics shows you have NO such theory to explain how CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and thus the evidence that it IS a greenhouse gas proves you wrong. That evidence includes infrared satellite data, which we already shown you many times, that proves CO2 absorbs infrared in our atmosphere just like it does in the lab and combine that with the known laws of physics proves it is a greenhouse gas thus proves you are wrong and you have given no counterargument to that because you and everyone here all know you have already lost that argument.
You are just trolling.
@Metal-Brain
So you are saying the information coming from sat data showing less Solar radiation leaving Earth than entering it which is what CO2 does, that data is bogus?
06 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidIt's not Einstein's aether theory. It only dates back to the 1980s.
He stole Poincare's equation e=mc2. Poincare came up with it first and that wasn't used to build on top of anything. He just used it.
Einstein started out rejecting the ether altogether. The Michelson-Morley experiment supposedly proved there was no ether. Is the Michelson-Morley experiment valid or not? Einstein rejected the ether and later came up with an ether theo ...[text shortened]... . Which is it?
What is the difference between Einstein's ether theory and Lorentz's ether theory?
wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
Einstein-aether theories were popularized by Maurizio Gasperini in a series of papers, such as Singularity Prevention and Broken Lorentz Symmetry in the 1980s
06 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidNo, I'm saying water vapor explains that.
@Metal-Brain
So you are saying the information coming from sat data showing less Solar radiation leaving Earth than entering it which is what CO2 does, that data is bogus?
That is the main greenhouse gas.
There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. It simply does not exist.