Showing posts with label Layperson. Show all posts

Reliable collection of various REAL climate indicators!

Settled? Give me a break! This is not even the full story. We don't know the full story.

.The above is a simplification would you believe? The true workings of the earth's climate as an entirety is something we are a long way from understanding. I hope you are not to horrified to find out it is not, in fact, "settled science". That statement is somewhere between hysterical and tragic and you shouldn't take such things seriously which I'm sure you won't if you value critical and independent thought which seems, likely if you are reading this blog. You only need to look HERE to see how far science in general is from being "settled", one of the most absurd utterings I have ever heard.

A simpler diagram but just as clear on making the point

I've established more or less as a certainty that there is a political, internationalist push or agenda behind the AGW movement, but science itself has failed both where its bought and paid for, and in more prosaic ways. Here is a thorough analysis of the topic by my favourite sceptic. It's an excellent video clip and essential viewing for anyone interested in the state of affairs in the scientific community.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-crises-of-science.html

The real science and scientific data should be responsibly sourced, thought about rationally and reacted to in a way that does not simply serve as a useful perspective for the political agenda of some unseen hand far away.

Destroying the junk science about the Coral Reefs and Anthropogenic Climate Change & more.

What it certainly should NOT look like, is this epic, steaming pile of turds posing something scientific:
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/02/so-this-is-where-we-are-fighting-cow.html

Here, in one image is the non-case of the AGW movement if their revisionist "revised data to minimise the distracting role anomalies play in the data.

If images are not what you are looking for, the best refutation of the AGW climate change science is the one embedded in this link and it was made by the worlds best long-range weather forecaster. IT was made back in 2014 and is also predictively accurate over the subsequent 5 years, something the AGW movement has never been able to claim,
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-best-refutation-of-climate-change.html

A variety of sources is better. For a random and accessible basic Idea, perhaps start here:

https://greatclimatedebate.com/tutorial-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw/?fbclid=IwAR07-rGyZCC3isuqynAaiYd7OeUU0Zxl7TbLhVJ9eK5ZGzGtQHW9k9gpLqo

(More Links)
30 years of media FAILS
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06/30-years-of-failed-climate-predictions.html

Starting with the most important single data set in climate science: The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature for the last 425 million years https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

For a brief outline of all the pertinent issues involved with misrepresented climate facts, truncated graphs, anomalies represented as data and all the debate points, please read this post which contains links to all the issues (scientific and political) central to the debate.

http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/05/climate-alarmism.html?m=1

For great weather models of all varieties follow Doctor Ryan Maue on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanMaue
He works for Weather Models dot com and here is the price structure: https://weathermodels.com

For an incredible tool to get live and past data here is a post with instructions on using it:
http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-every-year-really-hottest-year.html?m=1

Weather Service Data:
Here is the incredible tool:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/07/12/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic

What science is Google quietly removing?
Resources: (From whatsupwiththat)

Tap for link

More Mythbusting:

Are Natural disasters on the rise and killing more people?

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-catastrophes

Did you know?

The Idea that we anywhere near the optimum levels needed for plants to grow and flourish like they did in the past is simply wrong. The earth has been in a crisis of sorts of desertification limiting plant growth to only the most suitable conditions. It was not always so. CO2 is at historically low levels, it was 7 TIMES HIGHER! n the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

CO2 since 1800

The 2018 figure is the average of seasonally-adjusted figures for June and July, 2018 (which is a good projection for the annual average). Previous years are annual averages.

We also have a similar graph for methane(CH4),
and a combined graph with both CO2 and CH4.

Direct measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory, in Hawaii began in March, 1958. This is the annual average data we’ve graphed:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt(1959–2017)
For monthly data see:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt.

1850-1958 data is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt(ice cores).

1800-1850 CO2 data is from http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt(Law Dome ice cores, 75 years smoothed).

NOAA tide data: This makes a very persuasive case.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/03/30-years-of-noaa-tide-gauge-data-debunk.html

For everything else follow this link: https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/08/weather-is-not-climate-your-complete.html

Milankovitch Cycles

Everything we know is wrong? "Conventional Wisdom" is usually wrong for a variety of reasons.

Does the earth revolve around the sun? How many moons does the earth have? What is mass? What is energy? What is Gravity? What is dark matter? Dark energy? Do we have direct evidence for black holes? How did the solar system form? Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion phenomenon? Are there more than 3 dimensions? Find out why your answers are wrong, and you'll be surprised to know almost all conventional wisdom is wrong.

BUT the answers are not ALL necessarily wrong. That is my deliberate attempt at being obtuse to make a point. Technically there are better answers that are not required for day-to-day interaction, depending on how exact the answer needs to be or exactly how the question was framed. Sometimes the definition of a word which was chosen in the question is not definitively accepted or a casual definition is incorrrect but more widely accepted. We can get around this by utilization of the the correct context and subjective/absolute qualification. We also need to pay attention to the correct phrasing (in terms of the way the question is posed.)

But beyond these is where it gets interesting. These are those cases where our institutions or conventional wisdom simply has it dead wrong, and its those issues which are usually explored in their own posts or will be explored at a future date in my upcomming podcast:

Everything we know is wrong

https://www.spreaker.com/show/everything-we-know-is-wrong

Some samples of the different kinds of "wrong". From semantics to improper qualification of context. From hyberbole to simply having it dead wrong.

1) Does the earth revolve around the sun?
No, in fact the earth and sun both revolve around a common epicentre, which jiggles around as all the planets revolve around a common aggregate epicentre, dominated by the suns overwhelming mass.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/technically_the_earth_does_not_orbit_the_sun.html

2) The earth only has one moon.
Not true, few people know that the earth actually has a tiny second moon called Cruithne discovered in 1986
https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-might-actually-have-a-second-moon

The Panel of QI react with understandable disbelief at the prospect of earths second moon.

3) Civilization started after the last Ice Age.
We now know that after the last Ice Age civilisation was more likely to have rebooted than started. There are many different theories and speculations but the truth is we really don't know the specifics for sure.

One of the more interesting takes emerging from new scientific finds casting doubt on the precise origins of humanity. An informal and interesting chat.

Further reading on the re-think of the origins of our civilization:

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/10/assumptions-in-science-4-black-holes-do.html?m=1

4) Dark matter is real?
This is actually not established yet, and there is much much more chance it does not exist compared to it existing.
http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/04/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html?m=1

Black holes are the most violent forces in the known universe.
There is something lurking in the night sky that is pulling the entire regional universe towards it. And we don't know what it is.

5) Do hypothetical "Black Holes" actually even exist at all?

This question is a Pandora's Box on the subject of cosmology. All I can say is that if you are ready for a rabbit-hole event, read this post:

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/10/assumptions-in-science-4-black-holes-do.html?m=1

6) There is no absolute frame of reference.
This is a surprise, yes and no, loosely related to the above its for the more technically minded.

What is mass?

What is energy?

What is Gravity?

How did the solar system form?

Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion phenomenon?

Are there more than 3 dimensions?

Find out why your answers

reading from my blog where I report the most important cases of flawed understanding to you!

It's these cases where we are most likely to find institutionalised fraud, special interest groups or agendas being seviced which parade as unbiased clinical studies. In the medical feild the problems are self evident. For Astrophysics its the establishment preserving the status quo. With climate change its a matter of an entire feild of study being co-opted by globalist special interests of unimaginable wealth and resources. For commercial industry and publically funded matters it's all about greed, corruption and systemic nepotism that is subverted by stakeholders or powerful lobby groups.

This type of incentive gets very problematic for something that has become undervalued in the age of misinformation: TRUTH!

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-crises-of-science.html?m=1

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/12/50-years-of-failed-apocalyptic.html?m=1

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06/30-years-of-failed-climate-predictions.html?m=1

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/08/plasma-cosmology-electric-universe.html

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-fudge-factor-replaces.html?m=1

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/02/fraudulent-data-epidemic-climate-data.html?m=1

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-is-true-topography-of-antarctica.html?m=1

A More Interesting And Unconventional Look At Light

The boring and done before "duality of light" routine raises more questions than it answers. Quantum theory is watertight mathematically but what if it's probabilistic take on reality is nothing more than an accurate model. Is light a photon? Is it an electromagnetic wave? Of what kind?

Finally, I have found a short video that deals with these questions in a way that appears to be in touch with reality and retains the spirit of invention and curiosity that has left certain sectors of the physics community.

Is the theory of gravity just a "theory"?

3D Representation of mass curving spacetime

Did you know that there is no such thing as a gravitational force? Nothing is "at rest" And nothing "attracts" anything else as if it were a magnet, everything simply moves through on a straight line on a geodesic. Before this can be grasped you have to check out this super-cool video on frames of reference below, made in 1960. The sound takes a few seconds to kick in.

It can be expanded upon in thought experiment.
If if there was only a single particle in a universe with no fields, would it be still or moving? The answer is that it's not knowable or relevant. The one particle universe has no space. Movement t is not possible and time cannot pass because causality requires a sequence of particle events.
Add another particle. The two particle universe only allows the particles to move closer to each other or further apart. Even if you imagine the space around them in your mind to be 3 Dimensional it is irrelevant, that's just the way we think, only the space between the particles matters, other dimensions don't exist there. Time can at least now pass.
In a three particle universe all the complexities of our universe emerge as per the above video.

But we still need to add fields! And we still need to add a fabric framework for spacetime. What is it? It boils down to the path light takes travelling through spacetime, but there is a massive difference (so to speak) between trapping a moon into orbit and trapping a bean of light.

Hopefully you will be interested enough to watch the 5 series of clips below to resolve the finer points of this topic.

Should space exploration be privatized?

If you think you've thought this issue through, I put it to you that you probably haven't. If this topic interests you at all I suggest watching the whole clip resisting the urge to skip the parts you think you've paid mind to already.

Another thought on infinity from the perspective of overall universal charge being a Zero/Infinite Equivalence

My idea to make science as open source as media gets a great boost when you stumble accross great ideas from people on social media.

Thinking in absolutes on charge is a paradigm, there is no intrinsic need beyond labels to think of negative charge as fundamentally negative , we could call the charge we name "negative" positive, it's just a label and the field prevailing in the entire universe may even have universally frozen on these particular values somewhat arbitrarily, but it goes beyond that.

Previous post:
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/03/another-thought-on-infinity-from.html?m=1

Further to my previous post on infinity (above) here is something I picked up in comment section from a Facebook post from Jean Paul Guyse
https://m.facebook.com/jeanpaul.guyse?fref=nf&ref=m_notif&notif_t=feed_comment

"Glenn Swart Just looked at your other blogs ref infinity. My theory is a colourless flat pixel lies beneath the curved edge of the event horizon of a black hole, the Zero Squared [-1+1][+1-1]. It may also solve the problem ref dark energy and dark matter.

Under conventional thinking, some-thing can't come from no-thing. But if no-thing is 100% of everything (all negative and positive charges cancelled out) and some-thing is less than 100% (some of both the positive and negative charges remain separate) it simply answers that problem. No-thing of the Zero Squared (100% of everything). It's there but undetectable because it hasn't separated and thus hasn't released any energy beyond its flat surface. Energy is released once the supersymmetry is lost (curvature/warping begins) and the simultaneous Big Bang AND Big Freeze occurs. If the Big Freeze doesn't occur neither can the Big Bang and visa versa. Fire and Ice. This allows for the Universe to both contract and expand at the SAME time. At least TWO open systems but mutually closed into each other. Both stiring into each other and thus entropy doesn't occur. This solves Newton's problem of a close system suffering entropy. Because the Universe is a 'virtual' closed system consisting of two open one's. This is my theory. Quite radical but it works. Not saying it's right but equally it isn't wrong too."

"And just to add, I should have cited Cardot instead of Newton ref Entropy"

A Virtual Tour Around The Cosmic Web & Nearby Galaxy Clusters

The Grand Design

A breathtaking tour (below) zooming out to eventually cover the entire universe.

Thought this was way cool!

And here is a sense of our local galactic neighborhood.

How to prove the Earth is not flat, for yourself, using the Internet and a friend and mathematics.

It was suspected thousands of years ago that the earth is spherical, or geodesic to be precise. A papyrus from 230 B.C. Tells us what gave them the idea, and how we can improve on their work to form a conclusive proof:

Eratosthenes Finds Reasonably Accurate Diameter of Earth.

Alexandria Eratosthenes peered into a well here, at noon, and came up with the diameter and
circumference of our planet! The summer solstice, the Sun and a trip to Syene was all it took...........
Here is the experiment: http://outreach.as.utexas.edu/marykay/assignments/eratos1.html

Two wells or (alternatively two sticks) actually does not prove the earth is round because it does allow for a tiny sun very much closer than the moon to the earth, to be possible. We now know that isn't the case so we can use two wells or sticks, but it's cheating because the ancients never knew this.

To prove it conclusively you actually need the geometry of three wells or sticks. By doing three in a line and three in a triangle. Too much trouble?

BUT NOTE: still DISPROVE the small sun theory using two sticks or wells, because using geometry and shadows you could eliminate the "close to earth" small sun theory, and taking the distance of the required near sun, calculate the shadow angles and zoom the sun further away until it's far enough to match the known modern distances between your chosen cities work backwards. So it's still possible to ultimately prove it using two, and more mathematics but technically speaking the ancients never had that information. Nowadays we can easily just reset the odometer of a car or use GPS or maps.

You can cheat using a cell phone by phoning a friend a few hundred kilometers to your West and timing the gap between the sun disappearing over your horizon (on the shore of a lake, or ocean to guarantee eliminating hills and valleys unless the friend is very far away)

An experiment proving conclusively the earth can't be flat

And here is a slightly more complex one by an Islamic scholar in the 11th century.

How Al-Biruni Calculated the Circumference of the Earth Using a Mountain in the 11th century:
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/how-al-biruni-calculated-circumference.html?m=1

Nowhere in the observable universe can object's over a certain mass be flat or even potatoe shaped without gravity crushing it round. What makes you think only tbe earth is different.

Another aspect Flat-Earthers struggle to explain is timezones, how it can be midnight somewhere and midday somewhere else, and orbiting satellites and the space station you can view with your telescope.

We saw from our first example that the angles don't correspond to the mathematics, let alone the problems the below invokes refuting gravity etc. It also can't account for complete darkness and relies on a domino effect of requiring everything from the moon landings to orbiting GPS satellites. broadcast satellites, the space station etc being fakes. Its a very needy and unrealistic chain of hundreds of refution points requiring every science discipline, every nations Space Agency, Broadcaster etc to be in on it.

They also don't explain how no moon or meteor, or planet can be anything but round over a certain mass, that way they fail to correctly understand gravity. It's a state of mind relying debate on every point of science having to have proof experiments done right in front of them otherwise they reject them. I have no issue with rejecting anything. Who am I to judge? But rejection of everything Scientific in an age of computers, cell phones and aereoplanes is apparently cognitive dissonance. There is a word for that. It's not skepticism, it's paranoia.

The Many Faces Of Matter

Apart from dark matter, and Energy (if you take into account the matter / energy equivalency behind nuclear bombs as reconciled by Einstein's E=mc²) Then baryonic (normal) matter itself has many little known forms beyond antimatter and negative matter. It's quite fascinating.

It's difficult to understand matter fully so in that spirit this post seeks merely to describe aspects of its known range. The chart below shows us the mystery of the unknown matter and energy making up about 96% of the universe, which this post doesn't even go into.

Wikipedia states:

"A phase is a form of matter that has a relatively uniform chemical composition and physical properties (such as density, specific heat, refractive index, and so forth). These phases include the three familiar ones (solids, liquids, and gases), as well as more exotic states of matter (such as plasmas, superfluids, supersolids, Bose–Einstein condensates, ...). A fluid may be a liquid, gas or plasma. There are also paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of magnetic materials. As conditions change, matter may change from one phase into another. These phenomena are called phase transitions, and are studied in the field of thermodynamics. In nanomaterials, the vastly increased ratio of surface area to volume results in matter that can exhibit properties entirely different from those of bulk material, and not well described by any bulk phase (see nanomaterials for more details)."

But that's by no means the end of the story. The video below covers some of the more bizarre states of matter we never hear about, including 18 different kinds of water ice, time crystals, superfluids and frictionless matter, as well as the weirdness in states of matter we find in nature's densest matter environment, neutron stars (It's a surprisingly little known fact that black holes contain no matter, they have become singularities rather than super dense matter, they owe their extreme gravity to super warping of spacetime)

... Infinity...

Did you know that you get different sizes of infinity? IE numbers are infinite but so is a set of all EVEN numbers even though any given range only contains half the no. (of numbers)

This is the most basic of conundrums with infinity. The video below explores all the interesting quirks regarding this mind bending concept in an entertaining way.

And below a slightly more math/physics angle with s focus on singularities

I'm taking a stab at explaining Quantum Mechanics, Time & LightSpeed in laymans terms, as a Layperson.... In one post!

As ambitious as it sounds It's deceptively simple. Although I need some creative license for the broader understanding. It all boils down to things being able to happen rather than not happen. Hang in there with me for one second...

At the root we must actually start with a premise of Quantum Mechanics rather than lead up to it!

Why must information come in preset quanta or packets of data rather than a smooth sliding scale? Because to have causality and therefore time Itself you need to (at some point) break with infinity because when it comes to EXISTING , infinity turns the universe into nothing if it's involved in any SEQUENCE in certain areas of nature. In fact the Zero/Infinity equivalence is the prevailing theme of the universe itself.

Let me use deliberately mischievous phrasing here to sound like I'm talking nonsense, just to see if I can talk my way out of it. I'm not being a dick about, its the coolest way to make the point!

The reason why there is something rather than nothing is because something is not nothing at its core therefore it's not infinite either at its cause even though its infinite in its effect, ie its nothing in its effect.

Stay with me... ⚛️

How can this not be a paradox, without even getting into the fact that the overall energy if the universe IS ACTUALLY ZERO? (I'll cover that later) It's Because it takes forever to cover infinite values no matter how fast you cover them. For Causality (What we perceive as the arrow of time) to exist the universe must be incremented in some basic minimum possible unit or nothing would ever happen and nothing could exist. Basically there is, at the core of nature some basic resolution which would seem super hi res compared to any digital pixilation we understand. Perhaps subatomically we may one day see quantum probabilistic 0's and 1's make up quarks fragments...

Let me clarify, once more with creative license, by trying to make one event happen, using an example.
Let's use the example of simply lowering the pitch of a note on your guitar for sound, but it could apply elsewhere such as the frequency of light (ie lowering the frequency of violet to red)

Now how would you detune a guitar string from G sharp to B flat if you had to cover every single possible frequency between the acoustically pleasing notes we name as well as form in an octave, on a fret or keyboard IF you had to cover the infinite number of theoretical frequencies between them? You can't, it's impossible, it would take forever because there are infinite possible frequency single points between each frequency (See my infinity post by clicking this text)

Therefore on this chosen imagined example to illustrate the principle, our exercise of lowering the frequency of a wave is only possible if the values ultimately come in a certain minimum quanta (it's really a tiny value, Google PLANCK to find out how unimaginably tiny (or see the below videos) which is why we never encounter it outside of the sub-atomic scale, but for causality to exist then at some point it must be encountered or nothing would ever happen)

Ie at some point you can't get any more in-between shades of colour and there would be no further in-between notes.

Furthermore, not just the wavelength, frequency but also the amplitude. Here is a pretend Quantum wave as imagined at the Planck Scale at the with only X values (or lets simplify it to number of possible steps) in quanta on each curve rather than infinite values on a smooth sine curve.

Imagine a wave with limited, finite values instead of an infinite curve.

That way you can graduate between notes, colors etc with moving only up and down finite predefined set values (an imagined equivalency to quanta or packets of information to illustrate the point)

Therefore the implications are vast yest fundamentally profound. A MINIMUM Value, meaning a smallest and (it follows logically) fastest can be defined based on it, since everything is relative it makes no difference what the ACTUAL figure is. I must add that the smallest, fastest etc can only be defined based on this minimum unit relatively speaking. The eventual size of Planck's number is a finite size which means things can happen at a finite rate rather than at an infinite rate, and something can happen rather than nothing ever happening .

In principle, Time (causality rather) passes because massless particles travel the fastest (photons or light) also at an irrelevant speed but because they lack mass its the fastest speed, which means the speed of light (electromagnetic waves that is) determines the upper limit, having no mass, and therefore basis of causality, because of Planck's number being finite) and all things that happen must happen from there, and why nothing with mass can ever travel faster than light (because of causality and Planck, not because of the light speed we assigned a number too) without an INFINITE amount of energy required for acceleration.

Further interesting material:

Do We Already Have The Solutions?