This did not counter ANYTHING I stated. And, you are wrong about albedo vs. emissivity. Emissivity involves emitted radiation. Albedo involves reflected radiation.
Do you not have a "law" that explains that when you increase the amount of heat in a closed space, it increases because you are adding more heat to the existing heat? IOW, how do you turn up the heat on a stove? You ADD heat to what is already there. How do you make water hotter? You add heat to the existing water. The additional energy comes from repeated additions of heat until the contained space reaches the temperature of the source, and cannot get any hotter.
I can't help thinking of Holocaust denial when I read this. NASA can trap heat, as can National Geographic and I can too if I seal up my glassed veranda and expose it to daily sunlight , taking daily temperature readings. Heat is not light. Let's stay on topic. Of course you can make heat flow from cold to hot.. Add heat/turn on the hot tap. (in this case, the sun). Entropy has nothing to do with this. Earth does not radiate. It reflects. It has no heat or light source of its own. We are not talking about a vapour or gas warming the earth. We are talking about the sun's energy in the form of heat (and light) generated by the nature of the sun's activity, such as that of any star, warming it. The continual activity of the sun at atomic and subatomic levels is generated as atoms (etc) crash into each other and release energy...heat and light. This travels through space , is filtered to a greater or lesser extent by our atmosphere and finally causes our weather.(the movement of warmer or colder air which warms or cools our oceans, which is also involved in climate change) Which is why our weather is changing. Now you can deny it as you wish, but best to do so with a sound understanding of all physics, not just what you want to use.
A plausible theory, IMO, is that the Big Bang 'bled' over from another dimension in which something already existed...Quantum physics, ya know.
No, there were some other Christian groups around at that time. But they were persecuted as heretics and had to hide from the Inquisition. IMHO, Christianity is the religion with the most branches (which, of course, call each other a sect). This is not so pronounced in Islam.
OK...I think we are getting into definitions here of what "Christianity" means and therefore what heretic was. However if I am correct (and that is not necessarily so) the issue is The Church as another way of saying Christian. Can you tell me what other forms of Christianity there were? OTOH I do rememebr something about Cathars...a small group of much loved monks, some in the South of France, who refused the notion of a virgin birth (and other orthodox tenets) and were eventually slaughtered by Simon de Montfort..so you may well be right. https://www.worldhistory.org/Cathars/ Thanks. I had forgotten them. Do you know of any other "heretical" Christians?
Wait a second, are we now talking about the medieval church or are we still talking about medieval Christianity?
I suspect they are abot the same, since the calendar is based on the beginning of christianity. (Jesus).
I think you're on the right road here, but Earth does both radiate and reflect. It reflects solar radiation, such as when the sun reflects off of polar ice or frozen tundra. And, Earth also radiates heat. One of the issues here is that greenhouse gasses impede radiation significantly more than they impede the arrival of solar heating, as the shorter wave Sun rays and the long wave radiation of heat departing Earth are significantly different wave lengths and thus respond differently to atmospheric chemistry. Greenhouse gasses cause our atmosphere to impede the sun less than it impedes departing heat - thus changing the balance between arriving heat and departing heat. So, Earth gets warmer. Unfortunately, when sea ice melts there is more open land or water, and that absorbs the sun's heat rather than reflecting the shorter wave sun rays back to space. So, melting ice helps Earth get warmer.
What existed before the big bang? According to the cyclical model, there was another universe! And after the end of this universe, there will be another universe. On and on. I found this news article today that talks about it (the story itself is several years old): Scientist Finds 'Evidence' of Another Universe Before This One — Curiosmos
Agreed. Time as we know it is part of space-time, the composition of this universe. So, one can't go more "before" than the origin of this universe. But, the big bang wasn't a creation event, and it does make sense to work toward understanding the origin of this universe.
I think this 'something out of nothing' idea isn't quite right. I don't think nothingness (i.e., absolute vacuum) exists, and that which sprang from 'nothing', actually sprang from something, though it might appear to be nothing, it isn't actually nothing.
How do we know that the 'big bang' was the beginning of space time? how do we know another universe didn't precede it, with it's own space time starting and ending? What about this? https://curiosmos.com/scientist-finds-evidence-of-another-universe-before-this-one
vibrations Theories include known and unknown forces, vibrations, whatever dark matter is, or something we know nothing about because it existed before the BB. There is nothing definitive about any aspect of how this universe started until we know what the "situation" was before it. Maybe there was space-time pre the BB or maybe something else. It depends on how much changed at the BB event. (IMO)
Heat is not thermal energy, and temperature is not total thermal energy. -- I've corrected you on this numerous times, yet you continue to go 'full steam ahead' with your erroneous understanding of what "heat" is... Here, you have an energy source (whatever is powering the stove, be it electricity, gas, or otherwise). When you "turn on the stove", you have provided energy to the stove. Over time, the stove (and its surroundings) increases in temperature (due to the energy being provided). The stove's environment changed (additional energy was provided) which increased its temperature. What specifically in Earth's environment has changed which has increased its temperature? Remember, Earth's atmosphere IS A PART OF EARTH (and is thus not a part of Earth's environment). No, you put it out in the sun, you put it in the microwave, you put it on a stove top, etc etc What specifically in Earth's environment has changed which has increased its temperature? Remember, Earth's atmosphere IS A PART OF EARTH (and is thus not a part of Earth's environment).
WHOA! I have never discussed what HEAT is. Now my "stove" works to heat things when I put a lid on the saucepan and leave the gas at the same setting. I TRAP the heat and add more to it. If I set it at too high a temperature, it will boil over. The amount of heat I can reach is directly decided by the amount of energy I apply...ie the heat of the sun which is pretty constant. When my saucepan starts to boil over, I take the lid off. (in an emergency). I UNTRAP the heat and let it dissipate into the cooler air. If we put a lid all around the earth, it would start to reach the temperature of the sun's heat that arrives. and we would fry. What stops this is the atmosphere which releases heat back into space. What specifically in Earth's environment has changed which has increased its temperature? Remember, Earth's atmosphere IS A PART OF EARTH (and is thus not a part of Earth's environment). POLLUTION, bro! More particulates in it. and your last sentence makes no sense. The earth's environment of course contains the atmosphere. It is what lets the earth "happen".
This conversation is about the denial of science, not the denial of history. Nope. It is not possible for anybody to trap heat (the flow of thermal energy). If your claim were true, then you'd be able to show me a perfect insulator. I am still waiting for you to show me a perfect insulator. I have already corrected you on this, yet you continue to espouse complete and utter nonsense regarding this matter. I'll attempt correcting you once again: You are not "trapping heat" in your example... You are REDUCING heat (the flow of thermal energy). The glass around your veranda is acting as a COUPLING REDUCER between the air inside your veranda and the outside air. Thus, you have reduced heat (so your veranda is warmer than the outside air is). Remove the sunlight and your veranda will, over time, return to the temperature of the outside air. That means that heat has NOT been trapped and that there is still heat, but it's just been reduced due to the glass around the veranda. -- A greenhouse works in the exact same manner. My being able to sit inside my car during my lunch break on an extremely cold day (IF it is a sunny day) works in the exact same manner. I am, though. Photons are also involved in this discussion. Nope. Heat does not flow from cold to hot. You cannot reduce entropy (it can only increase, or remain the same if there is thermal equilibrium). How is turning on the hot tap supposedly making heat flow from cold to hot?? Entropy has EVERYTHING to do with this. It is what the 2nd LoT is all about. It involves the direction of heat (and that it flows from 'hot to cold', not 'cold to hot'). Earth does both. In fact, ALL matter radiates. Earth does not have a core that's much warmer than its surface and its atmosphere? That's PRECISELY what you are talking about. You are claiming that CO2 is somehow warming the Earth (increasing its temperature). Indeed. The Sun is heating the Earth. This brings us back to my original question: IF Earth's temperature is increasing, then there must be an additional energy source that is causing this (as additional energy is required to increase temperature). Where is this additional energy coming from, if not the sun? You have no understanding of physics (or even science as a whole for that matter), as you keep displaying by your erroneous misunderstanding of what 'heat' is.
Then why do you keep talking about heat without knowing what it even is or being able to describe it to anybody? It's as if you don't even read through what I say, because if you did, you'd know that you are in complete error regarding this. Your stove heats the saucepan (and its contents) regardless of whether or not you have a lid on the saucepan. Putting a lid on the saucepan is NOT "trapping heat" (again, this is not possible as THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT INSULATOR). Rather, it is REDUCING heat... Ergo, the temperature of the Earth is "pretty constant". Heat was never trapped to begin with (as that is not possible). What you did was remove the coupling reducer between the air in the saucepan and the outside air, which INCREASED heat. That allows the saucepan to better heat its surroundings. Think of this as water flowing through a 6" diameter pipe instead of a 1" diameter pipe. There is no lid around Earth, so it doesn't matter. The Earth radiates thermal energy into space, as all matter does. Define "pollution". The atmosphere IS Earth (in part). It is not Earth's environment. Earth's environment is that which is OUTSIDE Earth, and the atmosphere is INSIDE Earth (it is part of Earth).
Well, the point is that this universe is space-time. Anything about other universes is somewhat speculative, as we have little information about that. So, our time started with our universe, and our universe came into existence some tiny fraction of a second before the big bang, according to multiple lines of physical evidence that appear to confirm that. If there is another universe, it may be like our universe or very much not like our universe. Theoretical physicists come up with models of what might have given rise to our universe. Dr. Penrose and others are incredibly smart physicists, working with very little information. Others think it's possible that there are large numbers of universes out there right now. In fact, one reasonably popular view of quantum mechanics holds that our universe is splitting off other universes at an astounding rate.
Stoves have insulation. If you lived inside the stove with various capabilities, you could add insulation to the interior of the stove, retaining more heat than would ordinarily escape to the area outside the stove. That's what we do when we change the chemistry of our atmosphere.
Time could have started, and might stop, with our current universe. And there could have been another universe, that started and stopped, with its own time, before this one. It's possible, no? If that is true, then, in my way of thinking, time would exist in the abstract, as a continuity through line for all universes, and therefore an independent faculty of the universes. but, what do I know? I'm just a layman. I started a new thread, asking the question, 'Is time fundamental?", which was the questioned posed to several physicists who were interviewed. I've only watched the first two, but they seem to have suggested the possibility that we do know know what time is, at all, or that, time could be an illusion, for it depends on how you look at time. I'm not saying this, some prominent physicists are saying it. I can see no reason why there is only one universe out there, if our universe is a giant bubble kind of thing, why not more further out beyond our own. I mean, in our universe, there appears not to be one singular item in any category. Given this fact, then there shouldn't be one universe. Though we can't know for certain, I do feel that infinity is a real thing, and not just a math - in - the - abstract, thing.
