A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study

Written by Stephen J. Crothers

Australian National University astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt (picture) is a Nobel Laureate for physics. brian smith On Monday the 15th of September 2014 he appeared on the ABC national Australian television programme Q&A. 

His response to a question put to him by an eleven year old boy in the audience is a typical example of why it is very unwise to passively accept the word of an Authority. Presented here are a number of the nonsensical claims made by a Nobel Laureate on matters of cosmology and mathematics; symptomatic of just how intellectually decrepit astronomy and astrophysics have become.

1. Expanding Infinity

The question put to Professor Schmidt by eleven year old Lachlan Irvin, via his father Peter, was, “how can something as infinitely large as the universe actually get bigger?”[1]

Such a reasonable question requires a reasonable answer. Alas, it did not come. Schmidt began his reply withthe following:

“Ah, yes, this is always a problem: infinity getting bigger. So, if you think of the universe and when we measure the universe it, as near as we can tell, is very close to being infinite in size, that is we can only see 13.8 billion light years of it because that’s how old the universe is, but we’re pretty sure there’s a lot more universe beyond the part we can see, which light just simply can’t get to us. And our measurements are such that we actually think that very nearly that may go out, well, well, thousands of times beyond what we can see and perhaps an infinite distance.” [1]

However, an infinite universe cannot get bigger (i), bearing in mind that infinite simply means endless, and so is not even a real number. Professor Schmidt committed the very common cosmologist error that “very close to being infinite in size” is a scientific quantity [2].

Now I ask you, dear reader, just how close to infinite must one get to be “very close to being infinite”? With this in mind, how likely is it that cosmologists actually measured this nearness to infinity that Professor Schmidt has claimed?

Professor Schmidt could not decide if his universe is finite, infinite, or ‘near infinite’ in size, so he included all three.

In any event, “infinity getting bigger” and “very close to being infinite in size” are meaningless and so have no relevance to physical science.

2. Sanity of the Questioner

Schmidt continued with, “So imagine you have an infinite universe, which I say is expanding.

Well, that universe is actually embedded in four dimensions. It’s this way, it’s that way, it’s that way and then there’s time. And, so, as the universe gets bigger, essentially we are moving in this four dimensional space and we’re sort of where something else was in the past but we’re in the future and so we’re progressing in this four dimensional space in the future. And I always say there’s a problem with four dimensional space. It’s very hard to visualise. And, indeed, I’ve never met a sane person who can visualise fourdimensions and you don’t want to be one of the people who can.” [1]

First, contrary to Professor Schmidt’s assertion, no Big Bang (expanding) universe is embedded in four dimensions because they (ii) are all four dimensional by a mathematical construction.

This four-dimensional structure the cosmologists call ‘spacetime’, and according to them the Universe, although expanding, is not expanding into anything, and so it is not embedded in anything. Second, no cosmologist has ever measured a four dimensional interval in their spacetime.

After all, since they can’t even visualise it surely they would be hard pressed to measure it. Third, the sanity of the eleven year old boy (iii) who asked Professor Schmidt the question is not the issue, the notion of Schmidt’s expanding infinite universe is; also bearing in mind that measurement of the alleged expansion is what Professor Schmidt got his Nobel Prize for.

3. Doubling Infinity

According to Professor Schmidt, infinity can be multiplied by 2:

 “So, ultimately, we’re expanding into the future but think of it this way: in school you would have done this little experiment in math where you will put a ray starting at zero and it will go out one, two, three and off to infinity. You put a little arrow, it goes off forever.

So I can multiply that by two. So zero stays at zero, one goes to two, two goes to four, four goes to eight and you can do that for any number you want all the way up to infinity. And that’s sort of what the universe is doing. Infinity is just getting bigger and we’re allowed to do that in mathematics. That’s what’s so cool about math.” [1]

Consider the two infinite sequences of integers that Professor Schmidt referred to (where the three dots mean, ‘goes on in like manner without end’),

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …

0, 2, 4, 6, 8, …

First, all he has done here is put the non-negative even integers (the lower sequence) into what is called a ‘one-to one correspondence’ with the nonnegative integers (the upper sequence).

This does not make infinity get bigger. Both sequences are infinite (i.e. they are endless). For every number in the upper sequence there is one and only one corresponding number in the lower sequence. Second, since infinity is not a real number, contrary to Professor Schmidt’s claim, it can’t even be multiplied by 2 because, ultimately, numbers on the real number line can only be multiplied by numbers. Infinity is often denoted by the symbol ∞. This is not a real number and so it cannot be used for the usual arithmetic or algebra.

Substituting the symbol ∞ for the word ‘endless’ or the word ‘infinity’ or the word ‘limitless’ does not make ∞ a real number. Consequently, 2 x ∞ does not mean that infinity is doubled; it is a meaningless concatenation of symbols, (3) and therefore not mathematics. In like fashion, multiply Professor Schmidt’s first sequence by ½. The resulting sequence is,

0, ½, 1, 3/2, 2, …

Does this mean that infinity has been halved? Is not this sequence also infinite? Halving infinity is just as nonsensical as doubling it.

4. Unemployment

Professor Schmidt closed his response with the following:

“Well, it means that the galaxies that we see are getting – are moving away from us faster and faster such that eventually they will be moving so fast away from us that the light they emit will no longer be able to reach us. So we will be in the future looking out into a universe which is literally void of galaxies. Our own galaxy, it turns out, is not expanding because we have a lot of gravity here and it quit expanding 13.5 billion years ago but the rest of the universe will be accelerated out-of-sight and so I will be unemployed in the future because there will be nothing for me to look at.”

The expansion is apparently spacetimeselective; it is the spacetime between the galaxies that is expanding, not that within the galaxies, owing to gravity.

However, gravity is not a force in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, because it is spacetime curvature. Can you, dear reader, visualise four-dimensional spacetime curvature somehow holding galaxies together in the absence of any gravitational forces whilst the rest of the (infinite) Universe expands, without losing your sanity?

No cosmologist has ever measured their four-dimensional spacetime curvature anywhere. And so did Professor Schmidt and his team of cosmologists really measure expansion of the

Universe? But, of course, we have their word for it, don’t we?

5. The Lesson Learned

Science is not done by celebrity. An Authority having a Nobel Prize is no guarantee that his or her utterances even make sense, let alone count as science or mathematics. Passively accepting the word of celebrity Authorities, Nobel Laureates or grape growers, will not protect you from unemployment, even if those Authorities and Laureates are gainfully employed by the very same word.

REFERENCES

[1] Q&A, ABC television, 15 September 2014, (the section ‘Expanding Universe’)

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4069393.htm

[2] Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015, http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

(i) I shall not consider the esoteric purely mathematical issues of Cantor’s ‘transfinite numbers’, as they have no relevance here.

(ii) There are three different Big Bang universes alleged by cosmologists; one finite in size, the other two infinite. They differ by their spacetime curvatures.

(iii) His question is a rational one.

Comments (39)

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Too bad someone had to hijack this discussion. I find discussions of infinity interesting, especially people’s interpretation of what is basically a mathematical concept rather than part of the real world. I don’t think you can double infinity, but I also don’t think the line with an arrow in one direction is possible either, except as a mathematical definition. How can you only have infinity in one direction? How is that different than infinity is both directions? Infinity is infinite—exists in all directions at all times, unless you go with the future idea and that infinite expands with time. That would make time not infinite. The idea of gravity holding our galaxy out of the expansion is certainly odd. It would make our galaxy the center of infinity, would it not? Is there a center to infinity? (Yes, think one can go crazy messing with these concepts too much! It’s fun for a while anyway.)

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    Don’t worry, any of you:

    The “physics” of “radiative forcing” is totally incorrect. What really happens is explained at [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url] and I’m right in the development therein that is soundly based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    All climate change is natural and, just as it cooled after the Medieval Warming Period, so will it cool for nearly 500 years after the current warming period, starting within the next 100 years – maybe as soon as the 2030’s. It is gravity which traps thermal energy over the life of all planets, not carbon dioxide or water vapor which both cool rather than warm. I know my physics – trust me!

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Hey Doug,

      why do you believe in that “Medieval Warming Period” thing?

      • Avatar

        Me again

        |

        For the reasons at the top of my website and extensive empirical evidence that I’ve studied confirming it.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Written by Stephen J. Crothers on 19 Jul 2015

    “However, gravity is not a force in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, because it is spacetime curvature. Can you, dear reader, visualise four-dimensional spacetime curvature somehow holding galaxies together in the absence of any gravitational forces whilst the rest of the (infinite) Universe expands, without losing your sanity?”

    Gravitational force is the only upgrade in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, from,Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity,
    This took much more effort than any of yours!

    Can you, dear reader, visualise 4,5,6, or 100 -dimensional spacetime curvature somehow holding galaxies together, without losing your sanity?”

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      I can hardly hold onto a conversation with Doug Cotton without losing my sanity. 😮

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Stephen J. Crothers,
    Every increase in dimensionality “must” increase the volume of the new manifold! You ridiculously limit your concept of the universe! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Me again”][b]Carl is of course totally mistaken.[/b]

    If the surface temperature is already 15°C then 168W/m^2 will never raise that temperature even one hundredth of a degree in a billion years. The reason is in my paper “[i]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/i]” linked from the “Evidence” page [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].[/quote]

    More complete nonsense from Doug “smelly” Cotton socks! Any Earth BB temperature is a minimum temperature to dispose of any solar entropy so absorbed. The only high limit to Earth temperature is the same as that of the emitter of such Solar entropy in a direction of this Earth. As the temperatures equilibrate, the transfer flux of such entropy must asymptotically tend to zero. This is the same as the cake pan “must” do in the oven. As that earth temperature increases from “any” decrease from 100% emissivity at any frequency that increase in temperature “must” decrease solar entropy flux in the direction of Earth at every frequency as per the S-B equation.

    Your claim of “If the surface temperature is already 15°C then 168W/m^2 will never raise that temperature even one hundredth of a degree in a billion years.”, [b]has no merit, and cannot be supported within this physical[/b]. As Postma would say, No Science, only Sophistry! :-*

    • Avatar

      Me again

      |

      Entropy is not something that gets emitted – radiation does, carrying electromagnetic energy and being attenuated by the square of the distance. Try warming your toes from a camp fire 1Km away.

      Meanwhile go and publish your own refutation of the work of Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, cited in my PSI-reviewed paper “[url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url].” You are obviously not competent in the field of radiative physics, entropy maximization and thermodynamics, as silent readers will recognize by your incorrect use of terms in physics.

      • Avatar

        Me again

        |

        See also [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-195604]this[/url] comment.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”Me again”]Entropy is not something that gets emitted – radiation does, carrying electromagnetic energy and being attenuated by the square of the distance. Try warming your toes from a camp fire 1Km away. [/quote]

        More complete nonsense from Doug “smelly” Cotton socks!

        Thermal EMR is always spontaneous and transfers
        (power/temperature), only in a direction of lower radiance. Space does not attenuate this “power/temperature” whatsoever. Space has impedance but almost no resistance. What must decrease with distance is EMR flux. The EMR entropy per unit area, as per projective geometry!

        [quote]from “smelly” Cotton socks!
        You are obviously not competent in the field of radiative physics, entropy maximization and thermodynamics.[/quote]

        You are obviously incompetent in any field! MEP applies only to information theory, never mechanics or electrodynamics! Please buy even one course in electromagnetic field theory! Even a smelly sock may be able to learn.

        [quote], “smelly” Cotton socks! As silent readers will recognize by your incorrect use of terms in physics.[/quote]

        This from “smelly socks” that has never defined one word or phrase of which he incessantly spouts! As Postma would say, No Science, only Sophistry! :-*

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          Of course I was referring to the fact that the flux of radiation is attenuated as the radiation spreads out from a source like the Sun. The fact remains that a mean of only about 168W/m^2 of insolation strikes the Earth’s surface, and probably less than 20W/m^2 strikes the surface of Venus. Such levels are far too low to “explain” the existing surface temperatures on these planets. So “heat creep” has to be supplying the missing (required) energy.

          To understand why “heat creep” happens we have to understand entropy. The word “entropy” has a totally different meaning to “energy.” Entropy can be considered as a measure of progress towards thermodynamic equilibrium. What always happens in an isolated system is that there is a propensity for entropy to approach a maximum, and to do so by the fastest possible route. When that maximum is attained we have thermodynamic equilibrium, and in a gravitational field (or any force field) that state exhibits both a non-zero density gradient and a non-zero temperature gradient as I have shown in my 2013 paper and my book.

          [b]In that state of thermodynamic equilibrium there is no further transfer of net energy or mass across any internal boundary within an isolated system. So the temperature and density gradients are stable and exist without further internal energy or mass transfers on a macro scale.[/b]

          That’s what you need to understand, because entropy maximization is what drives and determines the direction of natural convective heat transfer which, by definition, includes diffusion and does not get driven by any external force or input of energy from an external source.

          Entropy maximization can transfer thermal (kinetic) energy in any direction in various circumstances, depending upon, and only upon entropy increasing and never decreasing in an isolated system. So a disturbance to thermodynamic equilibrium has a subsequent consequence that depends upon the propensity for the system to regain thermodynamic equilibrium, or at least approach such until there is a subsequent disturbance. This can and does sometimes entail downward transfers of kinetic energy via molecular collisions, namely “heat creep” for short.

    • Avatar

      Me again

      |

      Postma recognizes the geometric association between the radiating altitude and temperature, the temperature gradient and the surface temperature, but he does not understand how the required thermal energy actually gets into the surface of Earth or Venus, because we see no mention at all of entropy maximization in his writings as best I can tell. Point me to any such reference if it exists.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        But Doug, what you two do have in common is the most essential part, which is the solid surface having a HIGHER average temperature than the Sun can possibly induce, and that in absence of a more powerful than the Sun source of heat! Sounds absolutely crazy to me, but who am I to judge, again?

        Lacking the capability of grasping all the complicated process you describe I can only see that this kind of “warmer than possible” surface would radiate away MORE THAN SOLAR INPUT, which would be equivalent to producing energy out of nothing.

        But is it really a problem actually? Should we brutally trash a nice looking complex theory just because it violates some fundamentals? We are talking climate science here, this should not be forgotten!

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          If you want to try to “brutally trash” my hypothesis I suggest you read what it is and discuss the development from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the process whereby entropy is maximized. Your comment above, which appears to focus only on radiation being the main source of thermal energy entering the surface, just proves to those who have visited and studied http://climate-change-theory.com that you haven’t tried to understand a word of it. It’s actually not hard to understand for anyone with an IQ over 140.

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          But that said, I give you credit for realizing that there is indeed missing energy, in that there is more radiation and other heat loss out of the surface of Earth (and especially Venus) than the Sun’s direct radiation (or any radiation) supplies. Hence you implicitly agree that there must be other (non-radiative) thermal energy entering the surfaces of these planets, and that energy explains why their temperatures rise during sunlit hours. Go tell members of PSI that you have indeed confirmed the need for heat creep, the existence of which has now been confirmed with experiments with centrifugal force. Doug was right after all.

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          You see Greg, I did not write anything about “the solid surface having a HIGHER average temperature than the Sun can possibly induce” because I am careful with my words. Next time quote me using your clip board rather than you warped memory. You “forgot” I was talking about direct radiation to the surface, not what the Sun could induce all up.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    John O’Sullivan, Pierre Latour, Joseph Postma and others:

    In a nutshell, professors don’t always get it right. Nor did James Hansen, so why do you still let yourselves be influenced by his way of thinking?

    There is absolutely NO (warming) sensitivity to carbon dioxide or water vapor. There’s enough water vapor for us to see by measurement that more moist regions have lower mean daily maximums and minimums, as my study with data from 15 inland tropical regions on three continents showed to be the case.

    All planets and moons have inner regions (lower troposphere, mantle, core etc) which are maintained at higher temperatures than the effective radiating temperature. This requires an input of thermal energy to those lower regions, but that energy does not mostly come from direct solar radiation, let alone back radiation. It comes from the non-radiative mechanism about which you can read here and that is confirmed by a correct application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is all about entropy maximization and nothing else.

    You cannot prove me wrong on this. Your discussion of so-called “radiative forcing” is about a totally imaginary process which simply does not happen because all that back radiation can do is slow the rate of radiative cooling, not the rate of non-radiative cooling. But the Sun’s direct radiation cannot explain the existing surface temperatures on Earth or Venus, just for starters. So the rate of cooling is irrelevant. You think in the wrong paradigm altogether because you have been gullible enough to believe James Hansen and his cronies who simply do not understand entropy and the related thermodynamics.

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      I am not sure I understand to whom you are referring when you say “..you have been gullible enough to believe James Hansen and his cronies..”. As near as I can tell, not a single person of your list mentioned by name (John O’Sullivan, Pierre Latour, Joseph Postma) believe James Hansen in any shape or form. That only leaves the “others” you speak of. Can you be more specific as to whom these “others” are?

      • Avatar

        Me again

        |

        I see. So you all at PSI agree that …

        (1) back radiation has nothing to do with surface temperatures, as James Hansen claimed it did.

        (2) that there is thus no such thing as a radiative greenhouse effect, as James Hansen claimed there was.

        (3) that the Sun’s direct radiation does not need the help of back radiation to explain the surface temperature, as James Hansen claimed it did – and as it is shown in those energy diagrams.

        (4) that there is thus no explanation for the surface temperature that can be based on either direct solar radiation or back radiation to the surface, as James Hansen thought there was.

        (5) that there must thus be an explanation for the surface temperature which does not involve radiation, as I have explained there is.

        Good! So now we’re getting somewhere.

        What is your explanation of the surface temperature if it’s different from mine [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url]?

        If your explanation is different from mine, then how does the required thermal energy get into the surface to support such a temperature – especially at the surface of the ocean where it is colder both above and below?

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          I cannot speak for the others as to your point by point. Speaking for myself, I will state specifically that, (1) There is not “greenhouse effect”, and (2) The sun does indeed provide all that is necessary to heat our planet to what it is, and indeed is the ONLY source of that energy, period. Anything else is pure sophistry, including most of your convoluted crap, Doug.

          • Avatar

            Me again

            |

            The Sun provides the energy, but relatively little of the required thermal energy comes from direct solar radiation striking the surface, as is easily shown to be the case with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. See [url=http://www.climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html]this[/url] page for details.

        • Avatar

          carlallen

          |

          [quote name=”Me again”]What is your explanation of the surface temperature if it’s different from mine[/quote]

          Air that descends vertically within the Troposphere has work done on it by its progressively higher-pressure surroundings. This raises the amount of internal energy per kg that air in the lower troposphere possesses compared to the air in the upper troposphere and creates the temperature lapse rate that is measured by weather balloons (see: the First Law of Thermodynamics). Consequently surface level air temperature globally is significantly higher than is the average temperature of tropospheric air as a whole, which is around -18 °C. This thus warmed surface level air sets the lower limit to which the Earth’s hard/liquid surface can cool via convection, radiation, conduction and latent heat transfer (see: Newton’s Law of Cooling.) That is, once the Earth’s hard/liquid surface becomes as cool as the air that is touching it it stop cooling.

          The hard/liquid surface of the Earth does not drop to absolute zero every night; therefore the daily solar heating of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface, which on average is 160-170 W/m^2, is [b]additional warming[/b] that is added to the thermal energy already present within the Earth’s hard/liquid surface. In a state of dynamic equilibrium this 160-170 W/m^2 is also the average amount of thermal energy that is lost from the Earth’s hard/liquid surface every day via convection, radiation, conduction and latent heat transfer.

          Ergo, this 160-170 W/m^2 of daily solar energy is not what determines the average temperature of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface. The average temperature of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface is determined by the quantity of thermal energy that is stored within it. The only real effect that the average daily 160-170 W/m^2 of solar energy has on the temperature of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface is the creation of a diurnal temperature swing.

          Carl

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”carlallen”]the daily solar heating of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface, which on average is 160-170 W/m^2, is [b]additional warming[/b] that is added to the thermal energy already present within the Earth’s hard/liquid surface.[/quote]

            Additional, I see… So Carl, if we shut down the Sun hypothetically, that is if we subtracted those (alleged) 160-170 W/m^2, what in your understanding would be the temperature then?

            To cut the long story short, Doug’s point starts with the so called “earth’s radiative temperature = -18°C”. Do you agree with this “earth’s radiative temperature = -18°C” thing?

          • Avatar

            Me again

            |

            [b]Carl is of course totally mistaken.[/b]

            If the surface temperature is already 15°C then 168W/m^2 will never raise that temperature even one hundredth of a degree in a billion years. The reason is in my paper “[i]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/i]” linked from the “Evidence” page [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

          • Avatar

            carlallen

            |

            [quote name=”Me again”]If the surface temperature is already 15°C then 168W/m^2 will never raise that temperature even one hundredth of a degree in a billion years.[/quote]

            This statement would be true if the 168 W/m^2 to which I referred were the intensity of the IR radiation being emitted from an opposing surface that was -40 °C in temperature. Its not. That 168 W/m^2 is a “heat flow rate”. It is the rate at which energy contained within sunlight is constantly flowing into the ground/oceans on average for every square meter of the Earth’s surface.

            Whether that “heat flow rate” of 168W/m^2 raises the ground/ocean’s temperature depends upon the ground/ocean’s concomitant heat loss rate. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor decrease said heat loss rate. You and I both agree that it doesn’t. Especially water vapor which is seen to be lower atmospheric coolant.

            Carl

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”carlallen”]the daily solar heating of the Earth’s hard/liquid surface, which on average is 160-170 W/m^2, is [b]additional warming[/b] that is added to the thermal energy already present within the Earth’s hard/liquid surface. In a state of dynamic equilibrium this 160-170 W/m^2 is also the average amount of thermal energy that is lost from the Earth’s hard/liquid surface every day via convection, radiation, conduction and latent heat transfer.[/quote]

            Thank you Carl and please let me translate this idea of yours for lay persons. So, there is Portion A of thermal energy that is already there on our mother Earth, and then Portion B of thermal energy comes additionally from the Sun, right? Now, the portion B is also lost every day (via heat transfer processes), BUT NOT THE PORTION A according to you.

            What’s wrong with the Portion A, Carl? Is it sort of sticky and simply won’t leave the surface?

            Please answer that before January 31 (Nobel prize nomination deadline).

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            I would like to take this opportunity to remind the audience, “heat cannot pile”. So, one of Carl’s problems is, he cannot simply add Portion A to Portion B and get Summation C .. doesn’t work that way. Sorry Carl.

          • Avatar

            carlallen

            |

            [quote name=”Squid2112″]I would like to take this opportunity to remind the audience, “heat cannot pile”. So, one of Carl’s problems is, he cannot simply add Portion A to Portion B and get Summation C .. doesn’t work that way. Sorry Carl.[/quote]

            You don’t need to apologize to me but you might want to apologize to the First Law of Thermodynamics

            [i]change U = change Q – change W

            where:
            U = internal energy
            Q = heat
            W = work[/i]

            If we say that the current amount of internal energy within a particular thermodynamic system is 100 joules/kg and an additional 10 joules of heat enters that system for every kg of matter contained within that system then yes the amount of internal energy present within that system after addition of said heat will be 110 joules/kg.

            Carl

          • Avatar

            Me again

            |

            Yes it’s complex isn’t it. That’s probably why I’ve been possibly the first in the world to work out what really does happen. Solar radiation cannot cause the mean surface temperature to rise – only that portion of the surface where it is close to being directly overhead on a clear day. But why does the surface temperature rise of a morning even when there’s thick cloud cover? And yes, surface cooling does almost stop in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. Why? You know where to find the answers.

            You all sure could save yourselves a lot of time and confusion by reading about the process of entropy maximization which explains it all [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

          • Avatar

            carlallen

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]Thank you Carl and please let me translate this idea of yours for lay persons. So, there is Portion A of thermal energy that is already there on our mother Earth, and then Portion B of thermal energy comes additionally from the Sun, right? Now, the portion B is also lost every day (via heat transfer processes), BUT NOT THE PORTION A according to you.

            What’s wrong with the Portion A, Carl? Is it sort of sticky and simply won’t leave the surface? [/quote]

            1) I didn’t refer to the Earth as “mother”. To do so would be anthropomorphize a mineral reality. “Mother” is a name given to living things that give birth to like beings. As far as I know there are no baby “earths” in existence that our Earth would be the “mother” of. Mother Earth, Gaia, . . . these are the name used by the pantheists who are behind the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change ideology, which is an ideology to which I do not subscribe.

            2) What I attempted to convey is the simple fact that here isn’t enough time between sunset and sunrise for the temperature of the ground to drop to absolute zero.

            For example, on November 23, 2011 I measured the temperature of the ground just before sunrise and it was 2.5 °C. During the day the temperature of the ground rose to 25 °C and by just before sunrise the next day on November 24, 2011 the temperature of the ground dropped back down to 2.5 °C. Ergo, there was on that day enough internal energy present within the ground to keep the temperature of the ground 275.5 K.

            This thermal energy that was left in the ground at sunrise wasn’t “sticky” nor did it consciously refuse to “leave the surface”. There simply wasn’t time for the ground to cool any further and as long as the amount of thermal energy entering the ground during the hours of sunlight equals the amount of thermal energy that leaves the ground during the entire day the overall average temperature of the ground will remain constant. This is reality is expressed the following formula that defines the First Law of Thermodynamics.

            [i]change U = change Q – change W

            where:
            U = internal energy
            Q = heat
            W = work[/i]

            One cannot predict the temperature of a thermodynamic system by the amount of heat that is flowing through that system any more than one can determine the depth of a lake by the amount of water that is simultaneously flowing into an out of the lake as long as the inflow and outflow are equal.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”carlallen”]Air that descends vertically within the Troposphere has work done on it by its progressively higher-pressure surroundings. This raises the amount of internal energy per kg that air in the lower troposphere possesses compared to the air in the upper troposphere and creates the temperature lapse rate[/quote]

            Thank you, Carl. My first thought was “what a nice examples of physics upside down. You meant it sarcastically, didn’t you Carl, just to tease our friend Doug, right?”, but who am I anyway to judge?

            Humble me thought that this was exactly the other way round, like in school textbooks: the surface heats the air by conduction which makes it expand and therefore ascend thus making room for colder heavier air to descend, contact the surface and get warmer and so on. Some people call it convection. But please, do not pay attention, just continue your scientific work.

          • Avatar

            Me again

            |

            No “humble me” what you describe is an exceptional situation for just a small portion of Earth’s surface where the Sun is almost directly overhead and there is no cloud cover. Only in those situations (where the solar radiation reaching the surface is over about 400W/m^2) can that radiation actually raise the existing temperature of the surface. Given that the mean solar radiation absorbed by the surface is only 168W/m^2 you can understand why I refer to it being only a small portion which receives over 400W/m^2. If you want to know about the role of entropy maximization in all this then do as over 10,000 others have done and visit http://climate-change-theory.com

          • Avatar

            carlallen

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]

            Humble me thought that this was exactly the other way round, like in school textbooks: the surface heats the air by conduction which makes it expand and therefore ascend thus making room for colder heavier air to descend, contact the surface and get warmer and so on. Some people call it convection. But please, do not pay attention, just continue your scientific work.[/quote]

            What you are describing is one half of the process. It is not possible for air in one location to expand and ascend upward without a corresponding descent of air in some other location. Otherwise we would be living in a near vacuum at the surface.

            The most prominent examples of large movements of air vertically within the atmosphere are in the up-going and down-going legs of the Hadley, the Mid-Latitude and the Polar Cells. Within the Hadley Cell, for example, a massive quantity of air rises upward from the equator and cools adiabatically by the time it reaches the tropopause. This adiabatic cooling occurs because the ascending air is doing “work” against its progressively lower pressure surroundings. Per the first law of thermodynamics:

            change U = change Q – change W
            where:
            U = internal energy
            Q = heat
            W = work

            The “work” being done by ascending air drops the air’s internal energy and thus its temperature. For example, yesterday they sent up a weather balloon from Bangui, Central African Republic, which lies just 4.3 degrees north of the equator. The air at ground level was 25.8 °C, but by the time it reached 14 km in altitude its temperature had dropped to -66.5 °C. Since ascending air cools adiabatically at a rate of 9.8 °C/km the air at 14 km in altitude would have been -111.4 °C were it not for the fact that thermal energy is concomitantly being transferred up the atmospheric column by convection, latent heat transfer and radiative heat transfer.

            The reverse happens within the down-going leg of the Hadley Cell at about 30 degrees north. A weather balloon that was sent up from Bechar, Algeria (lat. 31.6 north) measured the air at 16 km in altitude to be -69 °C. By the time the downward leg of the Hadley Cell reached the ground (816 m) its temperature had risen to 39 °C. Since descending air warms adiabatically at a rate of 9.8 °C/km it would have been about 88 °C were it not for the fact that thermal energy is concomitantly being transferred up the atmospheric column by convection, latent heat transfer and radiative heat transfer.

            Since Bechar is a desert and during the day gets very hot and, as you say, air that is heated by its contact with the ground expands and ascends skyward you might very well ask, “How can air both be ascending and descending in the same location?” That is why the movement of air in any one location appears chaotic and why there is “weather” and wind. The atmosphere is continually attempting to equalize opposing forces.

            Carl

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Carl, you belong to the -18° group and explain by “work” etc. why the surface of the Earth has a higher temperature than the Sun can possibly induce, and that in absence of a more powerful source of heat.

            Since what you are trying to explain blatantly and obviously violates conservation of energy, there is no need even to look into your explanation at all, because you are trying to explain how impossible is possible.

            On the other hand, I am tempted sometimes to give you a hint. Do not know why I am doing this, because you seem so hopeless. Not much different from Doug. Never mind, keep going, do not worry, be happy.

          • Avatar

            Me again

            |

            “160-170 W/m^2 is NOT the average amount of thermal energy that is lost from the Earth’s hard/liquid surface every day via convection, radiation, conduction and latent heat transfer.”

            Why does your air descend? Where and when? Where does it get the energy to do work against the pressure at lower levels? You demonstrate no understanding of entropy. You are generating thermal energy out of nothing. Does your “process” happen at night, for example, when there is no supply of thermal energy freshly absorbed from solar radiation in the upper troposphere? You make no mention of such energy, after all. Does your descending gas explain the required energy supply at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus?

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    This is another example of a person that earned a PhD. and now thinks he can not possibly be wrong.
    I would have asked him if he got 100% on every test he has ever written in school; College; or University.
    If the answer is “No” then it shows that he can be wrong, which he, IMO, is about the BBT and the universe.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    [quote]”..is [b]very close to being infinite[/b] in size.”[/quote]

    WTF? … really? … just how close is “very close”? A millimeter from being “infinite”? A billion light years for being infinite? How about a billion billion billion billion light years? … How much smaller would the universe be it were a billion billion billion light years less than infinite?

    Someone please take this guys Nobel Prize away from him and publicly shame and humiliate this moron!

Comments are closed