You can’t heat Nothing!

Written by Tony Bright-Paul

Only this morning very early the enormity of what I had written yesterday struck me. Whereas the Rev Philip Foster had supplied some elegant constructs, I will now tempt you with some extremely simple arithmetic. Twice one is two, twice two is four. Are we agreed? But what is twice nought? Of course, it is nought. Let us go further. What is one thousand times nought? Of course, that is also nought, nothing, zero. Let us try one more time – What is 6,000C, which is reckoned to be the temperature of the corona of the Sun, what is 6,000 Centigrade times nothing? – you have it in one. It is zero, it is nix, it is nil, it is absolutely NOTHING!

This accounts for the temperature of Outer Space. Since space contains nothing, then the temperature of Outer Space is zero. Okay, it is given a Kelvin number, since dust particles may stray there. But the space itself is zero.Karman Line

So now I am going to attempt to answer some of the questions that I posed yesterday in my essay ‘What’s in the space?’ Was Galileo right? I mean, does the atmosphere have mass? The answer is complex, but in the simplest terms the atmosphere has increasing mass from the top down. At the edge of space there are very few molecules and according to an email I had from the astrophysicist James Peden there are very few molecules at the Karman line, but they are very hot – how hot cannot be possibly measured by conventional thermometers. But the vastness of the Thermosphere is cold. Why? Because it is near vacuum, it is nearly empty. And you cannot heat empty, as per the foregoing conclusions.

So is the atmosphere being heated from the top down or from the bottom up? The answer must be both. The Sun is heating mass, but only where there is mass. So the Greenhouse Gases must absorb the incoming infrared, and this is most easily illustrated by Water Vapour and clouds. For the full scientific argument on how this is done I would refer the reader to the paper by Hans Schreuder, ‘Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cool the Earth.’ (Affix link here). Clearly as Hans Schreuder argues the Greenhouse Gases absorb incoming radiation near-IR, which is far greater than far-IR, and therefore the Greenhouse Gases, far from causing warming, do exactly the opposite, – they have a net cooling effect, and this has been confirmed by NASA.

Everything now is perfectly logical. Once we realise that it is utterly impossible to warm nothing, then we also realise that – words are failing me here! – Where there is little mass there can only be little heat, there has to be something to get hot. So the molecules may warm, but the space in between is actually neither hot nor cold – it is absence. We call it cold, because it is the absence of heat. Am I making sense? Shall I tell you something? I do not know myself. I have to ask my scientist friends if this makes sense, as I receive what I understand as a sort of intuition.

The fundamentals remain the same. Radiation has to encounter mass to produce heat. The greatest concentration of atmospheric molecules is at sea level, where earth and oceans meet the air. Therefore what we measure as temperature is but a tiny part of the whole. I leave it to my readers to apprehend the consequences of the foregoing, if proved scientifically correct.

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as cold, but there is absence of warmth, of heat. Which is why I suppose we have the Kelvin scale, which goes down to absolute zero. What we call cold is the absence of warmth because of the absence of matter, the absence of mass, in a word the absence of molecules, since only matter can be warmed.

Surely, as the radiation from the Sun descends through our atmospheres it must collide on its way with molecules and divest itself of some of its heating properties, which is why we do not experience the same wild swings of temperature as on the Moon.

Let us be clear then: Neither Man nor the Sun can heat nothing. I ask you then: ‘What must this mean for the Globe?

Anthony Bright-Paul

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Elvera

    |

    Hi, constantly i used to check blog posts here in the early hours in the break of
    day, since i love to gain knowledge of more and more.

    Also visit my page; [url=http://www.medcomprare.com]kamagra[/url]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Anthony Bright-Paul”][quote

    I wrote a previous article called ‘What’s in the space? As molecules rise up through convection the space between them increases,so I asked my scientist friends what is in the space. The answer came back NOTHING. Clearly one cannot heat nothing. It is difficult to get one’s head around the idea that space is neither hot nor cold. A.B-P[/quote]
    Anthony,
    Please consider the in between always contains many time varing electromagnetic fields, eaqch called a poynting vector, one for each wavelength interval and for each direction. For a small solid angle and small wavelength interval interval, this poynting vector wheb nbormalized to solid angle os also called “radiative intensity” or “radiance”.
    While having no physical temperature this radiance can be measured accurately, and its value can be interpreted as a function of the temperature of the radiatiant source were that radiance powered completely by the sensible heat of that source. Such radiance can be powered by other sources such as electrical or chemical energy, but still that radiance can be interpretated as a “brightness temperature”, now relegated to a use concerning the rnergy density of a radar or laser. a useful term as it has all three linear dimensions and time normalized out.
    It is also the only reasonably accurate method for estimating the “temperature” of remote objects such as all in space. It is your ‘nothingness’ that makes all this possible. If the lack of “nothingness” is small and known,
    called density or radiant absorbtion factor, the approximation of “temperature” can still be quite good.
    Please be fair “nothing” may be the driving concept for all science.

    • Avatar

      Anthony Bright-Paul

      |

      Please be fair “nothing” may be the driving concept for all science.What a thought! I would love to hear more from you – Principia has my email. Tony BP

  • Avatar

    Anthony Bright-Paul

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Written by Tony Bright-Paul: “So the molecules may warm, but the space in between is actually neither hot nor cold – it is absence. We call it cold, because it is the absence of heat. Am I making sense? … Strictly speaking there is no such thing as cold, but there is absence of warmth, of heat.”[/quote]

    You are making sense to some extent, that is I can understand what you mean, but what you are writing about cold and warm is very confusing. E.g. if you define cold as absence of warmth, then there is cold, so you can not say at the same time “there is no such thing as cold”.

    Second, we don’t call “absence of heat” cold, by saying “cold” we refer to relative low temperature, depending on the context.

    In the context of climate scare calling empty space “cold” is a bad idea. I know, you do understand that temperature is bound to matter, so vacuum is neither hot nor cold. At the same time warmists use the term “cold space” to imply that “greenhouse gases” serve as insulation from the “cold space”, which is a complete nonsense physically. So, why do you feel it necessary to play around with such a nonsensical term and even invent a sort of ambiguous definition for it? This is what I do not understand.[/quote]

    I wrote a previous article called ‘What’s in the space? As molecules rise up through convection the space between them increases,so I asked my scientist friends what is in the space. The answer came back NOTHING. Clearly one cannot heat nothing. It is difficult to get one’s head around the idea that space is neither hot nor cold. A.B-P

  • Avatar

    Kevin Mulvina

    |

    I would like to add something significant, to your theory which is essentially correct in my opinion. What I would add is E=MC2 as the argument that defeats the Global warming fools and fanatics.

    There are no limits aside of Gravity that keeps our atmosphere attached to the earth or keeps us from falling off. The gasses have mass and weight however their influence on distributed energy could not be substantial, because those gasses exist as a blanket with more holes than covered spaces. More resembling a knitted quilt than a tarp. Heat is energy in motion and if the gasses can not block radiation from entering [freezing us to death] to heat the earth, neither can they inhibit the exit to outer space to any large degree either. Think of the Sun as the primary radiator and the earth as a secondary radiator. The reflection of energy from the earth can not increase the energy available from the sun, because all the energy from the sun does not strike the earth and total radiation from the earth comes nowhere near the levels required to increase or even maintain total energy levels at the sun. Greenhouse gases as a large number of extremely small radiators in comparison to the sun and the earth suffers the same deficits. They can not reflect more energy than their mass can sustain, else they would burning up the constituent mass that they actually contain.

    Picture placing a candle in the center of your house and mirrors on all the walls does anyone believe such a setup could heat the entire house? Wouldn’t it be great if their science actually worked in the real world?

    Back to Einstein. To produce greenhouse gases we burn millions of tons of fossil fuels, reducing the effective weight and the mass of the earth. Gravity is a condition of mass [reducer mass you reduce gravity] and the atmosphere expands outward. Increasing the total area that needs to be heated in order to see the global warming effects predicted. People do seem to be getting taller and stronger and they no doubt live longer these days compared to 100 years ago, so maybe the compensating act of gravity has moved the moon slightly away and the tides are not rising as high as they used too, and maybe we have more spaces for oxygen to form, by more water and more evaporation having effects on the growth of plant life, And all the things that follow to balance the MC2 perspectives.

    Is there any reason to fear those changes? Other than the fear that no one can draw a huge profit from them.

    So much in real science is being deflected by agenda driven statistics. In the end it is all about the money, but that is a preventable disease.

    • Avatar

      Anthony Bright-Paul

      |

      What are paid posts exactly? Always willing to get paid. Principia know my email.

      Tony BP

    • Avatar

      Anthony Bright-Paul

      |

      I really like your illustration of a candle in the middle of the houses with mirrors all around. Please get in touch – Principia has my email. Tony BP

  • Avatar

    D.M.

    |

    I have nothing to add to what Greg has said except when referring to “greenhouse gases” please always use parenthesis. Not to do so implies an acceptance that there are gasses which cause a greenhous effect.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Tony Bright-Paul: “So the molecules may warm, but the space in between is actually neither hot nor cold – it is absence. We call it cold, because it is the absence of heat. Am I making sense? … Strictly speaking there is no such thing as cold, but there is absence of warmth, of heat.”[/quote]

    You are making sense to some extent, that is I can understand what you mean, but what you are writing about cold and warm is very confusing. E.g. if you define cold as absence of warmth, then there is cold, so you can not say at the same time “there is no such thing as cold”.

    Second, we don’t call “absence of heat” cold, by saying “cold” we refer to relative low temperature, depending on the context.

    In the context of climate scare calling empty space “cold” is a bad idea. I know, you do understand that temperature is bound to matter, so vacuum is neither hot nor cold. At the same time warmists use the term “cold space” to imply that “greenhouse gases” serve as insulation from the “cold space”, which is a complete nonsense physically. So, why do you feel it necessary to play around with such a nonsensical term and even invent a sort of ambiguous definition for it? This is what I do not understand.

Comments are closed