Imagine how much confusion there would be if scientists were to use the scientific definition of a theory as apposed to the colloquial definition of a fact to explain science to the public??
Gravity is what attracts mass to mass, and increasing the mass of the object. What, have you never studied ever how the Solar System was created? Dust starts to get attracted to dust, adding more mass as it increases in mass and attracts particles from father away. Eventually gaining enough mass through gravitational attraction that it consumes everything nearby. Thereby gaining even more mass. Holy hell, I had absolutely no idea you had so little understanding of even such basic concepts.
Again, you'd better be really certain of yourself if you're going to try to ban the ICE worldwide on the basis of radiation affecting 0.04% of the atmosphere. Not that I'm worried. I'm a confirmed "climate denier that knows there's no possibility of legislating CO2 away.
I’m just thankful the planet is warming instead of cooling. I’m thankful that warming is bringing down the rate of human mortality related to exposure to suboptimal temperatures. As someone responsible for producing food and other ag sourced products for the global population I’m very thankful global temperatures are not falling or in stasis. I’m actually excited about EVs, but based on performance/performance potential and decreased maintenance potential, not because of CO2 emissions.
This has nothing to do with your statement that mass is created by gravity! The mass of an object is not related to gravity. There is so much nonsense in your post - consumes everything nearby? So why hasn't the sun consumed all the planets. Why hasn't the Earth consumed the moon? Why is the moon moving away from Earth?
Well we've ended up in almost complete agreement after all. Except I'm not as thrilled about EVs. But I'll be happy to joy ride anyone elses who will let me.
Wow, just wow. I'm done here. You do not even seem to understand how mass and gravity work at all. And you keep finding one claim busted, so you just spin off into a completely different direction.
But you stated that mass consumes everything yet you haven't given answers to the simple questions I asked
Especially when the CDC/NIH/WHO didn't know what they were doing. I mean, for crying out loud, for example, quarantining the elderly Covid sick with the elderly Covid non sick was a way stupid move.
Well, I’m in the unique position of just posing stuff that is based on actual science (evidence). So at times my posts conflict with positions from both sides. As I’m vehemently opposed to authoritarianism the science I present is more often accepted by the less authoritarian climate change skeptics side. I’m pleased in this case we are on common ground. Certainly we agree on the authoritarianism point, and that’s the most important on all dichotomous issues, even if they are falsely dichotomous.
Thank you, sir. And I've spent a couple years working in DC at the heart of the political manipulation that is climate change. My inherent skepticism got me bounced out of a good job with NHTSA under rather ugly circumstances. I'm not bitter (like Bumbles, I bounce) but I have no patience for totalitarian instincts that have come to obliterate reason when it comes to climate change. So inevitably, I'm political in everything I post. But it's been great to be schooled by you. Always good to learn. And I look forward to further discussions at any time.
The mass of an object is the same wherever the object is in the universe. Mass and weight are not the same. The objects weight is the effect of an attraction between objects. Weight (a force F) is proportional to gravity (F=mg). All bodies exert a gravitational attraction on other bodies. We have the saying weightless in space but the mass is still the same even though the weight is zero. The apparent mass of a body also increases with velocity giving rise to the term rest mass and is significant in e=mc2. Mass is an indication of how much inertia a body has and how much energy it has.
In my experience it’s appropriate to be skeptical whenever someone insists on making decisions for you. When people advocate for authoritarian policies that would force others into behaviors the authoritarian won’t engage in voluntarily, skepticism is critical! I can’t imagine working in DC. It appears the whole place is dedicated to forcing someone to do something—just the opposite of the Founder’s intention. I’m a political “atheist” at this point. Solving problems reduces the opportunities for government to extract wealth from and exert control over the citizens, so problem solving is not the goal of government in the US today. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is just one example where numerous solutions exist to leverage that increasing atmospheric CO2 into usable products and returning the planet to a more natural state where vegetation is abundant and carbon is plentiful in soils where it belongs. I don’t have faith in institutions that perpetuate problems that could be solved immediately with ample available solutions. Thanks for your kind words. I try to make information available that isn’t deemed acceptable for public consumption by gatekeepers of information. I do my best to be accurate but can and do make mistakes so I regularly encourage everyone to verify the correctness of my posts and sources. If there is disagreement with the (almost always based on peer reviewed evidence obtained using the scientific method) information I post I want those who disagree to present better or more complete evidence. I find it illogical to attempt to address big subjects like global climate change from positions based on incorrect and incomplete information. That’s why I typically present information not easily found anywhere else. Most sources of information on climate change targeted to the general public are curated by entities with very narrow agendas. Information not directly supporting those agendas simply isn’t openly presented and often hidden as much as possible. I would prefer those with enough faith left in our political system to bother voting have access to a broad swath of information, not just highly curated information intended to elicit voting responses driven by emotion—primarily fear.
Sure. I understand weight vs. mass. But gravitational attraction is proportion to mass. More mass=more gravitational attraction. I’m not sure how the claim mass and gravitational attraction are unrelated can be made.
The statement I was addressing was the statement that gravity creates mass. The magnitude of environmental gravity has no effect on mass. In a hypothetical world of just one body there would be no gravity F= GmM/r2 where F is the force of gravity so if m=0 then F=0 even though there is mass M. Mass is related to gravity as much as resistance is related to current. (V=IR, F=Mg) so yes, more mass = more gravitational attraction between objects but notice you didn't write the equation, more gravitational attraction = more mass
Leaving out Higgs bosons and Higgs fields in relation to creation of mass I can see your point of reversing the equation to more gravitational attraction not equaling more mass. But saying the two are unrelated is a claim I don’t see as supported. I was hoping you would go in this direction as it leads to what the other poster was actually referencing—the current theory that creation of the Higgs boson (the particle that confers mass to other particles in the Higgs field) during pre-big bang expansion was possible only because of the effects of varying gravitational forces dependent on varying energies during expansion. The idea is that without gravity, Higgs particles would not exist as there would have been collapse of expansion. Without Higgs particles/Higgs fields there would be no mass gained by other particles in the universe. Thus, no gravity equals no mass. And the statement “the mass of an object is not related to gravity” doesn’t hold water as without gravity mass wouldn’t even exist. I believe that’s what the other poster was referring to as well as gravity’s role in matter coalescing into planets, galaxies, etc. after the Big Bang. I haven’t kept up with the Higgs boson/Higgs field research in relation to particles assuming mass for the last couple years. If that theory has been supplanted by another I’m open to hearing about it.
I have a problem with this, as it appears to be a denial of the very idea that there are solutions that require coordinated effort or at least cooperation by the population. And, those are the problems that we have government to work on. I agree that government can overstep its bounds - something every individual and organization is prone to do. But, as a representative democracy we each have responsibility for that and we will not see ANY issue in the same light as do all other citizens.
If the Federal government really wanted to address climate change through EPA regulation, they'd amend the Clean Air Act to formally authorize the agency to do that. But doing it the right way would be too difficult so they defaulted to declaration by the Supreme Court. That pretty much guarantees it'll be fought until overturned. And WV v. EPA was the first step to doing exactly that. It's what happens if you try to legislate the physically impossible.
Nobody ever considered that the "Clean Air Act" was a total solution to climate change. It would only be a step - made by the country that emits more greenhouse gas per capita than any other significant country. Our failure is not just a problem in itself. It's a gutting of any international influence we have on the topic. Thus, it has a multiplier effect. And, objection to that act comes from those who reject climatological science, international cooperation, impact on their pet industry, and simply object to any regulation regardless of WHAT is at stake.
It's the only solution in this country. It's not a dictatorship. Noone can simply declare it to be done. And most people aren't stupid. They aren't going to voluntarily decide on a life that sucks because some bunch of privileged knot heads says we need to. And in the end, why should anybody care what the rest of the world thinks? Like Mom always said when I was growing up, "would you jump off a cliff if everyone else did?"
I have no idea what you man by your "noone can simply declare it to be done." The increasing average temp of Earth is the issue. So, the USA is one contributor. If our view is that we, as one of the worst contributors, are simply going to go ahead with warming Earth, then we can bet the world will be less inclined to do what is needed. Bless your mom, but I don't believe she meant for you to ignore the best human knowledge.
I’ve not advocated against democracy. I’ve advocated for education of the voter so they can make decisions with full knowledge of the pertinent subject. Unfortunately government and information sources today are uninterested in educating the public. Both are only interested in creating narratives based on highly curated subsets of information. I’ve not advocated against cooperative efforts. Quite the contrary. Cooperative long term efforts are made much more likely when all citizens are given full information on the pertinent subject. Deception can work for a time, but always ends up hurting cooperation long term. We don’t all have to agree. But if problems are to be solved, all fundamental science based information must be available to the public. A government more concerned with its own perpetuation of power and control than with comprehensive education of the voter is not really a representative democracy at all. It’s an authoritarian government that controls the population through control of information. I’m vehemently opposed to such government as were the folks who set up our system of government. “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W. C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820 “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” John Adams, Notes for an Oration at Braintree, Massachusetts, 1772 "If truth be not diffused, error will be." Daniel Webster “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” —James Madison.
So says you. And you suffer the same totalitarian arrogance of all the rest of the climate zealots. The problem you've had until 2007 was that there was no way to force your delusions on others. In 2007 the Supreme Court decided that the EPA could regulate CO2. That led to things like vehicle mileage standards that can't be done with ICE engines and fines for ICE manufacturers that went directly to EV manufacturers, setting off boon times of corruption that have boosted the fortunes of EV manufacturers beyond anything that could rationally be expected. Without EPA v. Massachutsetts skewing the market, EVs (including Tesla) would never hit profitability or long term sustainability. However there are two unstoppable forces shaping up to obliterate the green dream in the US. First, light duty (Class 1 & 2: cars and light trucks) is the only class of vehicles that are regulated as vehicles and not just engines. Being regulated as a vehicle allows you to regulate Miles Per Gallon or it's inverse grams CO2 per mile. Any other class of vehicle is regulated on an engine only basis of grams per brake horsepower hour. Since CO2 is one of the desired exhaust components of an engine (along with water) eliminating CO2 from an engine is a logical absurdity that can't be done. The second force is Trump's Supreme Court who, in last year's WV v EPA, eliminated the possibility of CO2 regulation from stationary sources and will likely follow on and overturn EPA v. Mass. eliminating any possibility of regulating CO2 without actually amending the CAA (EPA's authorizing legislation) which will simply never happen. So you and the rest of the world can whine to high heaven but the US has no other way to get this done politically short of becoming a dictatorship. The glory of it all is that you and other climate zealots probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Leaving it free to happen while you try to convince us that life is going to end if we all don't bow to your will.
