By Gary Novak
There has not been an iota of physics produced since Newton's laws which is not grossly in error. You say technology works. Engineering is vastly different from science. Engineers use trial-and-error to test superficial effects. Science produces basic reality, which is abstract. You might say that astronomy and optics are easily verifiable. Easy means superficial evidence which does not prove physics to be correct.
Around 1600, physicists were using pendulums to measure force and motion, because velocity could be determined by the height of the swing. They found that objects which collide conserve the total quantities for mass times velocity (mv) and mass times velocity squared (mv²). They ignored mv² as an irrelevant mathematical effect and said that mv is a conserved quantity of motion. Around 1635, Rene Descartes published a paper stating that there is a fixed amount of motion in the universe, because it is always conserved. By motion, he meant mv. In 1686, Gottfried Leibniz published a paper saying Descartes was wrong, it is not mv that is the conserved quantity of motion but mv².
Leibniz started with an invalid claim. He said that if a four kilogram object is dropped one meter, it will do the same thing as a one kilogram object dropped four meters. The ½mv² is the same for both masses, but the mv is not. To be correct, he should have said that if a four kilogram object is dropped for one second, it will do the same thing as a one kilogram object dropped for four seconds. These objects acquire the same mv, but not the same ½mv².
The Leibniz claim was argued for two hundred years, and then James Joule supposedly settled the argument in 1845 by stirring water in a wooden bucket to show the amount of heat produced by force and motion. Joule did not have the slightest ability to make such a measurement. The temperature increase was said to be about 0.5°C. That amount of heat would have disappeared in about 30 seconds. He said he dropped weights 16 times, which would have taken at least an hour. He wasn't just making innocent mistakes, he was a total fraud. He claimed to have eliminated environmental effects by dropping the weights an extra time. Doing that would have had no relationship to environmental effects, and it would have muddled the subject.
Physicists were trying to make such a measurement, and they could not accomplish anything with the wooden bucket experiment for numerous reasons. The first reason was that dropping weights, which stirred the water, would go faster and faster, which destroyed the ability to determine the force. Joule said he solved that problem by using more floats. Such a claim showed his total dishonesty. Floats would have been close to irrelevant.
But guess what, Joule was only off by three parts per thousand from the modern number. Joule said there is 4.2 Newton-meters per calorie, while the latest number is 4.1868 N-m/Cal. So how is the modern number produced, and does it not show that Leibniz was right? There is no evidence available to the public to indicate how the number is produced now days. There is not a method of measurement imaginable which would not show an error of several percent. I once saw a statement on the internet saying that now days physicists use compression of a gas to make the measurement. That won't work, as compression of gas produces a totally elastic force, which means no heat is produced.
The most provable reason why physicists are not really making such a measurement is that mathematics can show that Leibniz was wrong and Descartes was right, which means there is no real Joule's constant. The math is simple and unquestionable, as I show on my web site. With the Leibniz model, gravity can be replaced with the force produced by a rocket, and the fuel used by the rocket will show how much energy each object has. Relative fuel use can be determined with no error as the amount of time that the rocket burns to produce the final velocities.
Using a small rocket, the burn time for the four kilogram object dropped one meter is 1.77177876722800 seconds. The burn time for the one kilogram object dropped four meters is 0.88588938361400 seconds. The ratio is exactly two, which means the large object acquires twice as much real energy as the small mass.
Using the same rocket, the burn time for the four kilogram object dropped one second is 3.92400000000000 seconds, and the burn time for the one kilogram object dropped four seconds is 3.92400000000000 seconds. Both of these objects acquired exactly the same amount of energy. This shows that rockets transform chemical energy into mv with conservation, not ½mv².
With an incorrect definition of kinetic energy, there is no Joule's constant. Each time an attempt is made to measure it, a different number would be acquired due to changing conditions. So why is the modern number virtually the same as Joule acquired in 1845. Total fraud is the only reason. The numbers are being contrived.
Everywhere physics can be evaluated, the same standard of fraud is found. Early in the twentieth century, numerous constants were derived-the most notable being Plank's constant. An offshoot of Plank's constant is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC). It says how much radiant heat is given off by a surface at any temperature. Simple observation indicates that the SBC is off by a factor of ten or twenty at normal temperatures. When climatologists apply the SBC to an "energy budget" for the earth, they get absurdities due to the error.
The amount of energy from the sun entering the earth is said to be 235 watts per square meter average. The SBC says a surface at 15°C (earth's average) must be giving off 390 W/m² (not considering corrections for emissivity). Most of it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and much of that gets radiated back. After doing this, climatologists could only attribute 24 W/m² to conduction of energy from the surface of the earth. That's 6% as much conduction as radiation from the surface. Cooling fans would never by used if they only improved 6% over radiation alone. On top of that, a different energy budget produced by NASA without using the SBC shows 33% as much conduction as radiation moving energy from the surface of the earth. In other words, climatologists were forced into a bind when applying the SBC to the subject.
A more credible result occurs when reducing the SBC by a factor of 20. Then 20 W/m² leaves the surface of the earth through radiation, while 373 W/m² leaves through conduction, convection and evaporation. That's 5% radiation. With so little radiation, the greenhouse effect is miniscule.
Should the SBC be reduced by a factor of 20 at normal temperatures? The first obvious fact is that there is no such constant. Correcting each substance for emissivity shows that complexities influence the result. The curve for the SBC bends sharply due to a fourth power with temperature. The line goes almost horizontal at normal temperatures, when it should be going down significantly with colder temperatures.
Consider this: The average earth temperature of 15°C is that of a cold basement. The SBC says 390 W/m² is given off at that temperature. That's almost four 100 Watt light bulbs per square meter from the walls of a dark, cold basement. It isn't happening. Its 40% as much energy as falls on black asphalt at the equator at noon.
Physicists assume so much radiation is actually given off by matter, but you don't notice it, because the same amount is being absorbed, when all equilibrates. That assumption is absurd, because absorption and emission of large amounts of energy would not be invisible. Absorbed energy must be converted into heat before it can be re-emitted. If skin were absorbing and emitting 524 W/m² at 37°C, the heat would destroy tissue.
The global warming issue shows the culture of fraud that physicists produced. Since the mid nineteenth century, a small handful of physicists assumed global warming could be produced by greenhouse gases. Most scientists disagreed, because the so-called greenhouse gases saturated at a small percent of the present levels of concentration in the atmosphere. Saturation means they absorbed all radiation available to them, so more gas cannot absorb more. Also, oceans absorb CO2 so strongly, that they determine the amount remaining in the atmosphere.
Oceans are alkaline at pH 8.1. No one has ever found any other pH in the oceans apart from sheltered estuaries, related effluent and micro environments. This is because calcium carbonate is a strong buffer at pH 8.1. At that pH, water strongly absorbs CO2, which is an acid being absorbed by an alkali. Temperature also determines how much CO2 water will hold. As a result, CO2 moves into and out of the oceans with temperature changes.
The reason why CO2 is increasing in a constant manner is because oceans are slowly warming, as they always do between ice ages. Oceans absorb solar energy to a depth of 10 meters, which causes heat to accumulate. Also, geothermal heat enters the oceans and accumulates in a significant manner over time. It is only an ice age which allows oceans to cool back down. Ice ages occur every 100 thousand years, and the next one will occur within 2-4 centuries.
In spite of these assumptions, James Hansen et al published a paper in 1988 claiming CO2 emissions by humans are causing global warming (Hansen et al, 1988: --- J. Geophys. Res., 93 (D8), 9341-9364.). He used a fudge factor to determine the amount. The origins of the fudge factor cannot be determined, but it is nothing but a curve extending the assumed change of the past into the future. The fudge factor is now called sensitivity. It means 100 parts per million increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will supposedly produce 0.6°C temperature increase. All climatologists go by this assumed sensitivity, and they only argue about secondary effects, mostly due to more water being vaporized with increases in temperature (called forcing). The predictions didn't explain the cool-down over the past five years, so there is now talk of reducing the assumed sensitivity. That means Hansen's fudge factor needs to be changed.
That isn't what science is supposed to be. The purpose of science is to eliminate errors and corruptions through measurements which verify. There are methods which do that, and methods which corrupt the processes. One sees almost no verification procedures in global warming "science," only assumptions on top of assumptions.
Relativity has no other purpose than breaking down rationality, so incompetents can prevail. It starts with two objects moving toward each other, so velocities can be muddled with relative motion. What does that have to do with E=mc²? Absolutely nothing. Einstein paralleled the definition of kinetic energy, which says KE=½mv². Since that equation can be mathematically proven to be wrong, it means Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. What is science which parallels errors?
The reason why nothing can supposedly move faster than the velocity of light is because velocities are arranged under a square root sign, and there is no such thing as the square root of a negative. An eighth grade math student could contrive such a scheme.
Space-time supposedly replaces gravity because of an image of a vortex with a mass in the center. The science? It's explained as a graph with space and time on different axes. A graph and image replaces gravity. But Einstein is supposedly proven correct every day, because he predicted that light would bend around large objects. Space-time supposedly bends light, while gravity does not. Light bends when passing through variable density matter. It's called optics.
When physicists determined the age of the universe, they used the time required for light to get to earth from the most distant objects and said the universe is 13.5 billion years old. But they also said the universe started from a small point and spread outward, called the big bang. Didn't they forget the amount of time required for matter to go outward? Even at the speed of light, the age of the universe would have to be doubled. So after ignoring the question for several decades, they decided that matter got to its present location without moving, because the universe inflated. What was wrong with God doing it? Too much magic? It might look like a joke, but it's a culture of fraud.
Quantum mechanics is a huge black hole in physics. All physicists can tell us about it is that they can't statistically determine where electrons are located. If there were really something to the subject, they could tell us what it is. They say radiation exists as both waves and particles. The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. The radiation has to be just the right frequency. The assumption is there are different amounts of energy in each frequency, and a particle of energy seems to be required.
That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the frequency has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the frequency is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires. You might think physicists overlooked too much, but they couldn't have unless they wanted to.
With so-called fossil fuels, heat and pressure supposedly increase the chemical energy of biological materials to create hydrocarbons. There is no way to increase chemical energy but radiation. It means fossil fuels do not have biological origins. Physicists don't know that heat and pressure cannot be transformed into chemical energy? Chemical energy is in the motion of electrons which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei short of a nuclear reaction which will increase the motion of electrons which spin around them.
With ATP, biophysicists claim spinning proteins impart energy to ADP. The kinetic energy of rotating proteins cannot be transformed into chemical energy. One of the absurdities is that the energy of metabolism is carried as a high energy electron, which goes through three cytochromes to energy three ATP molecules. There is no mechanism for transferring the energy from the high energy electron to the spinning proteins. The energy has long been known to be transferred through cytochromes. That amount of absurd error does not occur by accident; it is a product of a culture of criminality in physics.
Gary Novak