Two theories, one ideological, other verified

About a dozen people who have read my article, the case of two different fluxes, have dismissed my central argument by invoking a silly theory. The most famous critic, Willis Eschenbach (of WUWT fame), thus writes:

Zoe, I just took a look at your page. I fear that you’ve made a mathematical mistake. The problem is that you have over-specified the equation. Let me explain by a parallel example:

It is a physical impossibility for there to be more water flowing out of the end of a hose than there is flowing through the hose. Can’t happen. The flow through the hose must be equal to the flow out the end.

In the same way, It is a physical impossibility for there to be more energy flowing out of the end of a block of concrete than there is flowing through the block. It is logically impossible. The flow through the block must be equal to the flow out the end.

— Willis Eschenbach

Willis then went on to resolve my equations using his key “insight” that the radiation emerging out of an object “must” equal its conductive heat flux. In the language of my article, the assertion is: CSR = CHF (Conductive Heat Flux = Cold Side Radiation [radiation at interested end] ).

The emission is at any moment εσT⁴. If the emission is not balanced by absorption or heat flux the temperature and consequently the emission will drop.

— Dirk Visser

This is essentially the same as Willis’ argument.

Other critics write:

If the heat flux is only 92 mW/m², then obviously geothermal can only make the surface about 36 kelvin.

— Unnamed

Again we see the CSR = CHF assumption, then evaluated with Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law.

Geothermal is negligible.

— Joseph Postma

Sun is more than 500 times as powerful as geothermal.

— Unnamed

Both of these comments implicitly assume CSR = CHF.

All other critiques are just variations on the same theme. Only difference is how many implicit logical leaps they are from the core assumption that CSR “must equal” CHF.

In my article I clearly explained that there is a difference between conductive heat flux within a medium and the emergent electromagnetic radiation out of the medium, but it’s been lost on deaf ears for some people. I don’t why (their denial), but I feel the need to shame them a little.

Let’s see what wikipedia says about a black body:

A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic radiation called black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone…

— Wikipedia

What is the conductive heat flux (CHF) of an object at thermal equilibrium (a uniform temperature)?

The conduction formula is:

Conduction Formula

CHF = Q/(A*Δt)

Obviously with a uniform temperature, ΔT equals 0, and thus CHF is also ZERO!

And what did Ludwig Boltzmann and Max Planck discover emitted from their radiation cavities which had a CHF of zero? Was it also zero as my critics assert with their CHF=CSR theory? No, of course not! What comes out of an object with CHS=0 is CSR=εσT⁴ , and not CHF=εσT⁴ [ as my 2nd critic evaluated ]. Nor is this CSR transient and headed for zero, as Willis and Dirk would have you believe.

Just as the wikipedia snippet above implies: ONLY the TEMPERATURE on the edge matters.

a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone

— Wikipedia

Now wikipedia is not always right about everything, but this is so commonly well known that I don’t need any other source. You can find essentially the same thing in every high school or college textbook. Every experiment since Gustav Kirchoff [1859] has invalidated the CHF=CSR hypothesis, and reaffirmed my hypothesis: CHF and CSR are completely different and their relationship is inverse:

CSR = εσ(T-CHF*L/k)⁴

The greatest external emission is achieved at the lowest internal heat flux, assuming the hot side temperature is the same.

At thermal equilibrium (CHF=0), this formula drops to:

CSR = εσT⁴

Yes, just Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law

If my critics were correct, then all (even one!) experiments since 1859 would show their claim to be true. Yet none of them do, because my critics are … merely engaging in ideological mathematics and not real physics.


CHF = CSRCSR = εσ(T-CHF*L/k)⁴
Ideological Mathematics Physics

Geothermal is more than capable of delivering 0°C (CSR=~315 W/m²), despite the fact that its near surface CHF is ~92 mW/m². In fact, assuming same temperature at same depth, a smaller CHF yields a higher CSR. The CHF (~92 mW/m²) alone is not even enough information to determine the final temperature, and hence radiation out of the medium. Quoting CHF and comparing it to insolation is nothing but junk science.

A CHF of 92 mW/m² does not inhibit CSR of 315 W/m²

Sincerely Yours, -Zoe

Update 2020/03/03

This video shows CHF through the water approaching zero. Gets to ~0.01 W/m² at the end.

This video shows CHF through the pan get to zero. See time 01:53.

59 thoughts on “Two theories, one ideological, other verified

  1. Zoe, you say:

    The conduction formula is:

    [Conduction Formula]
    Obviously with a constant temperature, ΔT equals 0, and thus CHF (Q/(AΔt)) is also ZERO!

    If the temperature is constant (and non-zero) then there must be energy being constantly added to it. Otherwise, it would constantly be losing energy through radiation, and thus cooling.

    And given that in your example, that energy to keep the temperature constant is being added to only one side, then there must be heat flowing through the object. So CHF cannot be zero.



    1. Willis you seem to have a problem understanding the conduction formula, or you obviously think it’s invalid. If ΔT = 0, then CHF = 0.

      Temperature IS kinetic energy.
      K.E. = (3/2)*k*T

      There is no heat flow needed for temperature, as the formula explains. Temperature is average translational kinetic ENERGY, not a thing dependant on heat flow. Heat flow can be zero and temperature != 0.

      “Otherwise, it would constantly be losing energy through radiation, and thus cooling.”

      This is so wrong. EM radiation is a consequence of kinetic energy. If molecules aren’t moving there is no radiation. Radiation is not a loss to an object’s kinetic energy, UNLESS other matter is in view.

      Seriously, Willis, why can’t you understand the conduction formula?

      Uniform temperature => CHF = 0

      How can you keep spouting the same things when there is zero experimental evidence to support you?

      Find me one experiment where a researcher found external EM radiation equals internal conductive heat flux as a final/steady state condition. Just one!

      (Edit: I suppose it’s possible only by accident: material and external energy happen to have parameters that coincide)

      Can’t you read?

      “The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone”

      Temperature ALONE. Not determined by CHF. Temperature alone. Temperature = Average Translational Kinetic Energy.

      Kinetic energy creates radiation and NOT the difference between kinetic energies of two [nearby] places.


      1. Zoe – Willis is right. You correctly say “ONLY the TEMPERATURE on the edge matters”, but net emission of radiation (energy) cools the edge – ie, temperature does NOT stay constant – unless the energy is replaced from somewhere. A flaw in your argument is that a body having constant temperature is not the same as a body having the same temperature throughout. A body can have a temperature gradient yet have constant temperature at all points.


        1. “but net emission of radiation (energy) cools the edge – ie, temperature does NOT stay constant”

          Nonsense. EM radiation is a reflection of kinetic energy, not its spending – unless there is another object in view, which is not the case here.

          Photons, having no mass, do not put the breaks on what set it in motion. Newtons 1st Law also applies, if photons do have tiny tiny mass, as some research shows.

          “A flaw in your argument is that a body having constant temperature is not the same as a body having the same temperature throughout.”

          Mindwarping nonsense.

          And again just like Willis, all mental masturbation without empirical evidence.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. The atmosphere does not have constant temperature. Stop with the word games. If you’re redefining constant to mean simply above zero, then you’re knowingly removing my context of the word.

          “Radiative cooling is the process by which a body loses heat by thermal radiation.”

          TO ANOTHER BODY, such as a satellite in space. My example specifically excludes other bodies.

          Look in the sky! It’s mostly black. The few that is not black is too far away to draw more than a NEGLIBLE amount of Earth’s kinetic energy. The Earth is not heating space and losing energy to it, but a square meter of Earth is losing energy to the square meter of satellite that’s monitoring it. Again, it’s a pitance, and lasts for a fraction of a second.

          The satellite shows a lot, but Earth didn’t lose much of anything.


        3. Why is the moon so damn cold at its “night” if it barely loses energy? Or is that an unfair interpretation of your claims?


        4. Unfair, because we know not its creation energy or the history of it interacting with other objects and their distances, etc. We can speculate, but that’s speculation.


        5. What is creation energy even?

          Do you have a 30 page manifesto, perhaps?

          “the history of it interacting with other objects and their distances”
          How does history matter? Nights are damn cold, days are damn hot. History is stuff that happened decades or billions of years ago, isn’t it? Not a “moon day”.

          Which objects could those be? Please do speculate.


        6. Patrick, the conservation of mass and energy is not merely wrong. Its a logical contradiction. Its not merely not true. It cannot possibly be true. For if mass and energy were conserved, you would never have had mass nor energy; not now or ever. Applying straight logic to the situation isn’t normally part of the scientific method. But when science is being controlled by psychological operations, then it can get you places.

          But you don’t stop there. After having worked out that there is new matter and energy creation, the next step is to ask “Where is this happening.” You don’t have to think to long to put together three likely locations. That doesn’t take a 30 page manifesto. It takes just a few sentences and there is no getting around it. Ludicrous young-universe creation myths don’t get a look-in.


    2. “If the temperature is constant (and non-zero) then there must be energy being constantly added to it.”

      No, at thermal equilibrium the “cold” side is not getting energy from the “hot” side. So No, there mustn’t be.

      “Otherwise, it would constantly be losing energy through radiation, and thus cooling.”

      Radiation is based on T on the edge, and not ΔT in the medium.

      Only if a third object appears to the right [on my diagram] would there be cooling (if it’s colder). If there’s no third object there nothing to lose kinetic energy to. If EM radiation “hits” something a lightyear away, that loss is too tiny to waste a neuron thinking about it.

      Those are the laws of science, Willis.

      If what you said had any merit, it would’ve been discovered and documented ages ago.

      There is no claim of CSR=CHF anywhere in the scientific literature. All evidence supports my formula.


      1. ‘If EM radiation “hits” something a lightyear away, that loss is too tiny to waste a neuron thinking about it.’

        So stars without planets nearby lose near-zero energy while gaining energy through fusion, right? Why aren’t they frying now? I suppose the energy gained should be roughly (!) linear, so the heat of a star should be roughly proportional to its age, right?
        I could have more fun since at the higher temperature, more elements get fused and stuff, but I don’t care to argue about that. Linear, logarithmic, “rooted” increase, those all sound implausible enough. Do we even agree that the universe and many stars in it are billions of years old (one or thirteen does not matter, does it)?

        Secondly, this is a big “if”. Can you repeat your rebuttal for the case that there *is* something to transfer energy to?


        1. Patrick, it’s really simple to repeat popular theories, but it takes a lot of thinking to evaluate if they’re any good, and it takes a lot of courage to socially challenge the bad ones. Humans are pack animals. In the abscence of anything better they will pack into a bad theory as well, rejecting anything better that comes along later in favor of comfort.

          Have you seen fusion in the sun?

          The sun “emits” a potential 63MW/m^2, but how much reaches other objects in space? A pitance.

          Sun could still be emitting creation energy from beginning. Or it could be fed externally as EU theory suggests. I don’t know. What I do know is that scientists like to claim things for places unseen: fusion in the sun, blackholes, dark matter, etc. Lefty scientists go even further: Russian Bots.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Patrick the fusion model of the sun is about as disproven a model that can be imagined. It was thrust upon the public more or less the same month as the detonation of the alleged fusion bomb. And ought to be considered as part and parcel of associated disinformation. The fusion model of the sun demands we believe in the doctrine of the self-compression and self-segregation of hydrogen. So its an openly stupid model, and nor has it ever passed any empirical test.

          Fusion itself ought to be easy and not dramatic under the right electrical conditions. We saw this with a kids toy that used to be out there not long ago called a Fusor. I think there is new matter creation and fusion going on in all very large bodies, starting from bodies perhaps a bit smaller than the moon. We see evidence for this on Pluto for example.

          If Zoe wasn’t somewhat on the right track, with her geological heat ideas, how is it that NASA has witnessed live volcanoes on Pluto? Where could that heat be coming from, and the materials buildup to cause these volcanoes to blow their top every now and then? At this stage the materials detected are only water which freezes before it hits the ground. Or at least mostly water. The fellow at NASA saw these volcanoes and said he wished he could unsee them. But they never change their models. They always stick with disproven models.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. There is a lot of people talk and conspiratorial thinking in this reply. It would take a whole lot of evidence for me to take such ideas seriously. I am also not very interested in those, though I have to admit it is my hope – therefore “bias” – that our scientists are competent (on the whole, we can live with a couple of cranks). Our future depends on them (climate change mitigation, adaptation, pandemic mitigation, medicine, inventions).

          “how is it that NASA has witnessed live volcanoes on Pluto?”
          Well, not molten rock. I don’t know how they got there.
          This quote is not about Pluto, just an example:
          “Signs of past warming of the Kuiper belt object Quaoar[5] have led scientists to speculate that it exhibited cryovolcanism in the past. Radioactive decay could provide the energy necessary for such activity, as cryovolcanoes can emit water mixed with ammonia, which would melt at 180 K (−95 °C) and create an extremely cold liquid that would flow out of the volcano.”

          If Pluto’s cannot be explained, I can take them as an unexplained anomaly. Why an anomaly? Because Pluto is (on the whole) incredibly fucking cold, just as expected given that it barely gets any sunlight. Perhaps a couple of Watts per square meter (<10) do come from radiometric decay, but even if there are more, that does not get Pluto to 0°C (on average) or remotely close to it. The same applies to any planet further away from the sun than Mars.


        4. Once you show an aversion to conspiracy you are confessing a mental handicap. Did Caesar stab himself? Its hard not to insult people who admit being that stupid. So I’ll leave it at that for now.


        5. “If Pluto’s cannot be explained, I can take them as an unexplained anomaly. Why an anomaly? ”

          Good Lord Patrick. How is that for idiocy. A fact is made to disappear by calling it “an anomaly” Patrick is a magician. No it just stayed a fact. It didn’t disappear. And it means that modern physics is wrong. Thats all there is to it so you ought to stop being an idiot or give it away. Science is not for everyone. Certain primitive troglodytes should stay out of it.


        6. Paul Feyeraband described science as anarchy. Not all science is good science. Most science is absolute garbage, and that’s why so few Fathers of science are known. But even they were not fully correct. We celebrate them for the few things that were original and right. But who knows? Even some things that were considered right might get overturned.


  2. Zoe,
    It seems you refer to Tetrode’s star.
    According to Hugo Tetrode in a paper written in 1922:

    The sun would not radiate if it were alone in space and no other bodies could absorb its radiation… If for example I observed in my telescope yesterday evening that star which let us say is 100 light years away… the star or individual atoms of it knew already 100 years ago that I, who then did not even exist, would view it yesterday evening at such and such a time.

    This is based on the notion that a free photon cannot exist, the emission and absorption of a photon is a single event.


    1. I’m refering to the education I received at university.

      “based on the notion that a free photon cannot exist”

      Yes, based on physics. Are you suggesting someone detected a photon that didn’t come from kinetic energy of some matter?

      That’s funny, and practically impossible to prove.


    2. teerhius I think we ought to be pretty scornful that there is any such thing as a photon. Waves are not compatible with a volley of particles. But I find what Hugo said to be very interesting from an aetheric perspective.

      In my book you have something similar to earths atmosphere in the sun. In that you will have a homosphere of mixed gasses, then the gasses being segregated out due to molecular weight. The last four layers being helium, hydrogen, protons and then electrons. But the segregation won’t be perfect.

      So we have some level of charge separation indirectly due to gravity in this mental map. This leads to charge buildup. Since the aether is not a great conductor this leads to thermal energy. The ions or plasma will conduct the electrical energy very well but when they hit completed gasses these non-ionised non-plasma gasses won’t conduct well at all. So thats where you have the creation of a photosphere in this crude hypothetical model.

      So I think there is this dual transmission of energy. Both thermal and electrical. And this may have some bearing on the relation between the producer and the receiver of both these types of energy.


    1. Believe in the speed of light? Thats a bit of a bizarre one. Actually the measured speed of light is always jumping around a bit, as you would expect, with changing aether conditions. The science frauds wanted to follow Einstein and attribute mystical qualities to this moving metric. So they locked the metric in by definition, to keep that speed artificially stable. They redefined the metre in terms of the speed of light.

      Are you talking about some sort of Voodoo associated with the variable speed of light that everyone must believe in? Just specify what voodoo you are talking about?


      1. Visigothkhan, you are right about light (hey, that rhymes too!) .. we see this all the time with nuclear reactors, it’s called Cherenkov radiation whereby particles surpass the speed of light in heavy water because the speed of light is slowed. The blue glow is essentially the optical version of a sonic boom.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Back in the 90’s superluminal experiments were talked about openly. They were more or less routine around the world. But sometime in the early 2,000’s the decision must have been made to shut this sort of talk down, and rededicate resources to the continuing apotheosis of this grubby little Einstein fellow.


  3. Zoe, I’m confused (as usual). If Delta T goes to zero, CHF blows up. It doesn’t go to zero in your equation. I think there is confusion in this discussion. I think we all agree that if I put an iron rod in a fire it gets hot and if I take it out it cools. I think this is where you are losing people. This isn’t to say that CSR equals CHF. I think you would be better understood with real world example to distinguish what you are saying.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Zoe, I can follow you completely. Below is a thought experiment in which I describe what would happen when the sun is turned off.
    (posted on
    How do you see this?

    Of course, when the sun is turned off, the surface temperature will drop. The heat flow (Q) from the core to the surface will increase. As a result, the temperature difference dT (core / surface) also increases. The surface therefore becomes colder. The colder surface then ensures a lower CSR (cold side radiation).

    Here is perfectly illustrated that increasing heat flow leads to a decreasing appearance. Zoe says: “The higher the conductive heat flux the lower the emission.” and vise versa


    The surface temperature / time relationship is determined by: – the amount of energy in the core – the extent to which the earth is able to generate its own energy through radioactive processes.

    Scenarios A:
    The earth glows out, no significant energy is added from the internal radioactive processes.

    Re A: Rapid decrease in the earth’s temperature due to the disappearance of the sun. Followed by a very slow further cooling. The cooling is getting slower and slower because the degree of appearance also decreases (see illustration above). 0k is the end point.

    B: the earth reaches a new thermal equilibrium, corresponding to the degree of internal radioactivity. This balance remains as long as radioactive fuel is present BUT is always finite.

    Re B: Rapid decrease of the earth’s temperature due to the disappearance of the sun. Followed by a new balance. This balance can be maintained as long as fuel is present. After the ‘power’ has become exhausted, the system will continue to cool in accordance with A.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not bad. Keep in mind that objects don’t cool to space, but only other objects. For examples:

      The Earth sends ~0.17 W/m^2 to the Moon for ~0.5 degrees of its view,

      A square meter of Earth sends ~240 W/m^2 to a square meter of a monitoring satellite.


      1. “The cooling is getting slower and slower because the degree of appearance also decreases”

        I am not a physicist. Am I mistaken when I say that meanstream science predicts linear cooling?

        Can this ever-slower cooling be measured, be determined experimentally? This result would prove your theory empirically.


        1. It is possible I may be wrong, IF EM radiation through the fabric of space (“the aether”) really does drag kinetic energy to a slowing down. In other words, if electric and magnetic waves are as rigid as waving a rope. Eventually you get tired of waving a rope, if you understand the analogy.


        2. I think with aether its would have to be breaking and reforming all the time and it would have to have a lot of elasticity to it. Otherwise matter would be fixed in place, and movement would be impossible. It doesn’t seem that a great deal of energy is lost. But I think energy will be lost through wave interference.

          The idea that there is this 3 degrees Kelvin everywhere. It could be a measuring artifact but supposing its valid? It would amount to a resonant frequency of the aether. It might be a way that some of the energy of stars and planets can be drained off. In other words you might be somewhat right that matter is needed to take this energy. But it may not be an absolutist thing.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. In the hypothetical case that in the immeasurable space there would only be ‘1 object’ with a temperature> 0 k, there would be no heat emission. The object would remain at that temperature for an infinite amount of time. This notion follows logically from the law of conservation of energy.

    This presents us with the following almost philosophical problem. After all, no colder body is present -》 then the body cannot shine. If there is a colder body -》 the body can shine.
    If the object only starts to shine. If other colder objects exist, we must ask ourselves how this radiant body can know whether a receiving colder object may be present, even mayby light years later.
    This presupposes a form of communication between objects OR meta-information embedded in matter. This is beyond our imagination.

    This is a substantial aspect that must have been discussed immediately after the ‘big bang’. Something was first. Briefly, very briefly there has been a body that: either did not blast, or must have had a temperature of 0 k.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I like your reasoning. But if we get rid of aether-denial we see that matter communicates with matter all the time because all matter is connected in the same gravitational network, and by way of the aether. We can know that this is the case for a couple of reasons. For starters gravity is a pull force, and an instantaneous pull force. Gravity is not limited by the speed of light. We know this, since were this not the case all our orbits will unravel.

      The Einstein true believers go through a bit of a dance when you point this out to them. They end up quoting Poincare, then they kind of say “look over there” and thats about the extent of their argument. There really is nothing there. Instantaneous action implies constant contact, directly or indirectly.

      The second thing to realise is that the conservation of energy is not merely wrong, it cannot possibly be right, since in that case there would never have been any energy ever. So if you kind of go through your thinking again, with the realisation that energy is both created and lost, and without any trace of aether-denial, then you may be able to grab some low-hanging fruit.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. This supposed communication problem is one of the least understood aspect of quantum mechanics. Perhaps distance is only relevant in our eyes and not for the photon – I cannot understand – I am a human.

    It is quite something to invalidate the law of conservation of energy. In my opinion, that is the most fundamental law of physics.

    By the way, I don’t have an explanation either.

    Nice to discuss this with you.


    1. The conservation of energy may be fundamental but its wrong. And it cannot be right. Let me explain how these control mechanisms work. I’m a fan and well-wisher of new testament Christianity and I have no interest in testing anyone’s faith. But early Christianity was a control mechanism and the key to control is that you force people to believe things that cannot be true. There are many positive things about Christianity but to be a believer you must believe in the resurrection and in a virgin birth. Neither of these things are possible.

      Well its the same with the takeover of physics. There are so many things they force you to believe, or else you aren’t part of the club, and you cannot hold down a job. So we knew that there was an aether since there was no such thing as waves where nothing is waving. Thats like clapping without any hands. The first step was to outlaw the aether, something we already knew existed. When you are looking into anything quantum you are looking at a series of beliefs that have been brought to us under aether-denial.

      Now I already proved that energy is not conserved. No-one can ever wriggle out of that in the course of a thousand years. The original conservation of energy didn’t deny that God would have had to put the energy in place in the first place. We inherited this incorrect law from a theological base. We have refuted this law empirically when we boost rockets around a planet. And in fact we see this law refuted daily, when the moon causes the tides, lifts the earth, on a daily basis and still has enough juice to accelerate away from the earth.


  7. Ether? Is this an energy source similar to zero point energy? You know, how atoms vibrate even when they are cooled within the thousandth of a degree of absolute zero… Where do they get all that endless vibrational energy from? Sub atomic? Hyper space? Parallel universe? Quantum???
    Can we tap into it and extract free energy?
    My College professor knew a man with a free energy machine. When describing how it works he said picture of the earth as a motor armature rotating inside a magnetic field, all you need is a conductor and you have a flow of electricity. The problem with having energy all around you, is how do you tap that energy of the battery when you live inside the battery?
    The gravity of the moon was just mentioned, the funny thing about tides… during the new moon when the gravity of the sun and moon are lined up to create the high tide, pulling water up against the gravity of the earth, there is a “high tide” on the “opposite side of the planet” working against the gravity of the sun, moon, and earth in defiance of the laws of gravity. (-3%)
    Is the alignment causing antigravity? Or more to the question, why is there a low tide below sea level at 90° to the gravitational influence? Other natural forces have well-documented influences at 90°. For instance when electricity passes through a wire, a magnetic field is created at 90° to the flow of electricity. Does gravity increase? pulling water levels down at 90° to the gravitational influence? Like a water balloon being squeezed around the middle causing high tide at both ends? Keep in mind, earth floats in freefall.
    If this is true, then gravity fluctuates with the tides. (most big earthquakes occur at low tide) (It could be also demonstrated with barometric pressure perhaps) While gravity remains constant in the polar areas at 90°. (I have heard you weigh more on the poles than you do at the equator and it’s not due to centripetal forces)
    As for gravity being instant and not at the speed of light, or the solar system (and the universe) would unravel… This is correct. A friend of mine worked for JPL, when developing a more sensitive gravity detector for satellites, they tried it out on the sun and moon. It worked perfectly on the moon, but would not point at the center of the sun. They recalibrated several times with the same result in the same spot. Then it occurred to them to lock the position then using a stopwatch as the sun moved until the moment the locked position became the center. It was almost 8 minutes later proving that gravity was instantaneous and they had to compensate for the visual speed of light. The detector was pointing at where the sun actually was.
    Magnetism also travels instantaneously. They will pick up the magnetic flux of a solar event, before they can watch it from the solar observatory.

    Speaking of the sun, it is not nuclear. I know this because I am alive. Nuclear fusion has particle byproducts that would sterilize this earth with every rotation. The gamma particles we receive from the sun is a factor of 3 (10×10×10) less then we should be receiving when compared to the amount of energy the sun produces.
    There is no known way to shield from neutron radiation. That’s why heavy water tanks deep below the surface, preferably in salt mines, can detect nuclear explosions, nuclear power plants, and are very effective in detecting supernovas because shorter wave neutrons travel faster than visible light. None of this would be possible if the Sun was emitting high levels of gamma radiation. Indeed, intergalactic space would be a wash with radiation.

    I have a paper written about our solar system dated 1890. They calculated that the Suns energy output was the equivalent of 9 feet of coal distributed across the entire Solar surface every hour.
    Which brings up heat propagation. Does the laws of thermodynamics apply to the sun? Is this why the solar probe is there now to answer how the sun works? They named the probe after the man who prostrated that the sun was electric and that “nano flares” (formally “micro flares” deemed by a British SOHO scientist) was the cause of all our light, heat, solar wind. All of which flows from the chromosphere thousands of miles from the surface.
    You see the chromosphere is 2,000,000°F or more. Deep in the sun is 50,000,000°F. But the surface of the sun, the photosphere, it’s only 9,500°F. A fraction of the heat sandwich. A violation of physical laws unless there is another causation we are unaware of. It’s like putting an ice cube in your oven, turning it to the highest setting for oven cleaning, waiting a million years to find out that the ice cube has grown larger… Introduce the “thermal pile” effect. (just like what your pilot light in your gas heater uses) not only does heat travel from hot to cold, electricity flows with it. In this case on a ball of plasma, we’re talking about a continuous discharge following the path of least resistance (which means avoiding magnetic sunspots) heating up the chromosphere to millions of degrees. The measurements of this occurrence is consistent with the electrical arc in a hydrogen atmosphere. The spectrograph analysis are identical.
    Think about what you were taught how gravity compressed and heated the center of the sun until hydrogen fusion begin… This is the same process, only the fusion never happened and cannot be measured as happening.
    I think that’s enough to chew on.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Magnetism also travels instantaneously. They will pick up the magnetic flux of a solar event, before they can watch it from the solar observatory.”

      I just read the rest of your post Max and its very interesting stuff. People see that so much of what is going on runs against mainstream ideology. But its hard to talk about it in mixed company. We have a kind of perfect interlinked circle of error thrust upon us. Only trust a law thats been verified in the lab.


  8. “Where do they get all that endless vibrational energy from? Sub atomic? Hyper space? Parallel universe? Quantum???”

    You’ll locate where its coming from just as soon as you get it through your head that the conservation of energy is impossible OR THERE WOULD BE NO ENERGY? I hope I’m not going too fast for you here. So once you fully absorb this reality, you will easily find the locations with what you already know now. The doctrine is destroyed by the mere fact that we have energy. But you have recent empirical disproving, that gives you a hint as to one of the pristine energy sources.

    The Oberth effect paradox gives a rocket greater energy than that invested. The slingshot is better than it ought to be. Wikipedia must have recently cleaned up their act to bullshit us that this isn’t a violation of energy conservation. Never mind. This gives us one of the locations for pristine energy. Whereas a large object and a small object follow heritage formulae, two large objects, where the smaller is lets say, at least as big as our moon, have orbits that are energy positive. So thats one location.

    Some contemplation will tell you that gravity is not as clumpy as it ought to be. Whereas mathematicians struggle to solve three body orbital problems, the galaxy solves a 100 billion orbits problem effortlessly and every moment. And two large bodies never crash in any of this shuffling. Were this not the case a single supernova could lead to a partial galaxy collapse. Rather than a mere resorting of orbits over a few centuries. In fact if you get too hung up on formulae you will see that if anyone sneezes the whole thing collapses.

    I think the other sources of pristine energy locations are where gravity leads indirectly to charge separation. So that would be the suns corona, the Van Allen belts, their equivalents around other planets, and the centre of large bodies.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Zoe,
    two books that you should read, they are an essential part of every chemical engineers library, I’m assuming they are still in print but I did graduate over 50 years ago. You seem to have the IQ to read and understand them. Many of todays so called scientists should also read them if they can. You will not find any self respecting competent chemical engineers that believe in the IPCC CO2 rubbish.

    “Transport Phenomena” by Stewart, Bird and Lightfoot.
    “Thermodynamics” by Lewis and Randall


    Liked by 1 person

  10. Not bad. Keep in mind that objects don’t cool to space, but only other objects. The Earth sends ~0.17 W/m^2 to the Moon for ~0.5 degrees of its view,

    A square meter of Earth sends ~240 W/m^2 to a square meter of a monitoring satellite.

    So all we need to do to control the temperature of the Earth is send up more satellites to give the heat “somewhere to go”.

    Dr. Zoe Phin rewrites the laws of physics yet again.

    Keep it up girl, you’ll get a Nobel prize for this ground breaking work one day. It’s quite an achievement proving centuries of science to be wrong at your tender age.

    The new technique of proof by assertion is a great technique, it takes all the time consuming work out of old fashioned way of doing things. This way we will move ahead in leaps and bounds.


    1. @Greg: “Please address the fundamental question it seems you are so intent on ignoring: We both agree that total energy has to be conserved, so where is the difference between 557 and 2.5 W/m^2 going to / coming from?”

      The amount of energy from the CSR (= 557 w / m2) ultimately comes from the temperature of 75C (> 557). The energy flow in the material – the CHF – actually has no independent energy value.

      The only thing the heat flow does is determine the decrease in temperature on the other side (CSR temperature). As the source, the HSR is the only independent energy carrier.

      Every comparison, between CHF and HSR / CSR – under the law of conservation of energy – is like comparing apples with pears.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “…Not bad. Keep in mind that objects don’t cool to space………”

      I think Greg is right on this point. I think heat loss to space is pretty direct. That one point has been bugging me awhile. When the shuttle was on the dark side of the earth, the guys floating outside were having trouble with their hands getting cold. They were asking for special heated gauntlets; is the way I heard it. Their orbits meant it was day night day night day night in quick succession, so they could manage heat, but not perfectly. Whereas the stories associated with Apollo had to be nonsense, since in the story they had to spend so much time unshaded.

      If mass is a mere by-product of aether, and if aether is more or less everywhere, then you’d expect direct loss of thermal energy to space. And after all what is this 3 degrees everywhere? If not the by-product of all this heat production by stars and planets? I mean the actual measurement of this 3 degrees background microwave radiation … perhaps we need to take this with a pinch of salt. But its almost what you would expect, else what are these stars doing all day and night?

      See I think energy is what mass AND AETHER is doing. Being brought up under aether-denial it would be easy to truncate that story and suggest that energy is what matter is doing. Then it would follow that energy was communicated from matter to matter alone. That sounds logical. But when you bring back the aether there is no longer any reason to assume such a thing.


      1. Heat transfer is a resonance phenomena.

        Heating space is a Corpuscular Theory of Light idea.

        There’s this idea that the sun sends energy packets (called photons) to Earth (or your men in space), and then Earth re-emits those energy packets to space.

        Nuh uh, the sun sends waves which makes molecules dance vigorously in resonance with what the sun provides at that distance, and when the sun is no longer in view, the molecules lose their mojo and go back to their slower dancing.

        One of the brilliance of Boltzmann and Planck is recognizing that if the separation distance between two objects is 1 meter, there will never be a 2 meter wavelength photon. Clearly because only some photons are possible waves can only occur between matter, otherwise all photons would be possible.

        Wavelengths don’t even mean anything to a corpuscle.


      2. I don’t think that there is any such thing as a photon. So I’m 100% wave theory. But supposing I’m floating outside of the space shuttle? My hands are getting cold. Do I have to assume that they are losing heat to the dark side of the moon? Can they not lose energy to space? We might be caught with a paucity of empirical evidence that we can rely on here.

        If they throw me into liquid nitrogen at -20 degrees Celsius my skin will get snap frozen. But at high altitude, with some shade and reasonable amounts of clothing I’m going to cope with that same temperature relatively easier. Even if you are struggling for air, temperature regulation is easier at altitude. If you are a little too hot, just before the trees tap out in the tropics, your sweat evaporates more readily at higher altitudes. Its a very comfortable place to live. I think the less air the less thermal gain and loss. And your skin isn’t even itchy. Its almost like you don’t need to wash too often to feel good.

        To extrapolate a bit if there is no air there is probably a slower rate of heat loss to space then there is to air. But is it really zero unless we are relying on shaded objects to radiate too? We want to at least find a way to test this doctrine.

        The electrical impedance of free space is about 377 ohms. So aether is a electrical conductor but a poor one. Or an electrical insulator but not a very good one. If we have one hypothesis that aether conducts thermal energy but not real well, and another that it conducts thermal energy, but only if there is shaded mass nearby, and we formulate three more hypotheses to test alongside these two …. then the question would be how to test and re-rank the hypotheses?

        Since I see aether as swamping matter and matter being a mere minority by-product, I’d be leaning more to the idea that it conducts thermal energy, even in deepest space, but fairly poorly, ahead of the data rolling in.


        1. “When the shuttle was on the dark side of the earth, the guys floating outside were having trouble with their hands getting cold. They were asking for special heated gauntlets”

          Why does this fact refute “my” theory?


          S= Sun
          () Shuttle
          * Human
          =E Earth

          There’s only ~235 W/m2 between Human and Earth. That’s -20C. Mighty cold. I can imagine the space suit was not good at heating extremities, requiring gauntlets.

          The shuttle facing Earth, if hotter than Earth’s atmosphere would be heating the atmosphere.


        2. Not using the term “photon” makes it difficult to converse with many. So I keep it, but I recognize it as 100% waves. Waves can ONLY form between objects. Boltzmann used statistics to figure out how many waves (and which wavelengths) would fit in a cavity. He did not recognize two-way “photon” travel, only one standing wave per wavelength between two opposing walls.

          The way I see it, there are EM “ropes” “tethered” between every object in the universe. The aether is their propogation mechanism, but the aether itself is not viscous enough to slow down (cool) matter.

          This view is consistent with Boltzmann’s and Planck’s derivations and experiments. Also consistent with Shrodinger.

          It’s not consistent with pseudophysics that many are indoctrinated with today. They don’t even know the origin of their false theories, but they are arrogantly certain it’s correct physics.

          I’ll stick with Boltzmann and Planck,
          Early Planck (the one that won the Nobel), not the post-Einstein confused Planck.


        3. I don’t see anything I’ve said as a refutation. I’m just troubled by the idea, since I don’t see the data either way and I don’t think there will be holes or gaps in the aether. The large gravitational bodies will entrain aether. They may be wrapping it up into themselves, and concentrating it somewht. But it strikes me as unlikely that there will be space without aether, and therefore I would doubt that space would be a fantastic insulator.


        4. “Waves can ONLY form between objects.” Thats impressive certainty. I see aether as preceding matter. So I would have my doubts about that. But its interesting because we can never get a straight answer from the astronauts as to whether they can see stars better, worse, or not at all. They treat these simple things as if they were state secrets.

          Since everything is moving all the time, if large gravitational bodies didn’t entrain the aether then visual images would become incoherent. Yet they can get photos coming back from a pretty small comet. But at the same time, on these space missions, you have a paucity of in-between photographs. They cannot seem to send us photos until they are in orbit to the planet they want to take a look at, or real close to the comet that they want to survey. That might seem to back up what you are saying. But I’d want more information.


    3. Greg,
      Boltzmann and Planck’s Laws are derived from understanding waves:

      The Corpuscular Theory of Light of Newton, and reinstated by Einstein is not capable of deriving the known radiation laws.

      Waves only form between objects, and not between an object and the nothing of space.

      You don’t understand the laws of physics and their derivation, and so you think I invented laws, when all I did was understand the difference between a radiating potential and an actual heat transfer.

      34 is not a tender age for a woman, but thanks for the compliment.


  11. Throw a stone into a pond and a ripple ( wave ) spreads out. It does not form “between” the stone and the bank, it does not need the bank to be there to form a ripple.

    Ah, so Einstein was wrong about light as well. That’s reassuring.
    Are you able to understand that light is neither a wave nor a billiard ball but both models can be useful in different situations. This is called wave-particle duality in physics. We’ve come a way since Newton.


    1. So throwing matter into matter causes a wave. Great. I don’t object. Now throw the stone into no-matter (space). See the ripple? Don’t lie, where’s the ripple?

      Is the ripple even transverse with another ripple, like E & M are? Why use that analogy?

      LOL, Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light returned us back to Newton.

      Nope, sorry, light is always a wave. Don’t listen to Einstein. Plenty of scientists explained photoelectric effect without needing a particle. So there is no reason to have a duality. Tell me, what does wavelength mean to a corpuscle/particle?


    2. I like your stone-throwing example but then we see this:

      “Ah, so Einstein was wrong about light as well. That’s reassuring.
      Are you able to understand that light is neither a wave nor a billiard ball but both models can be useful in different situations. This is called wave-particle duality in physics. We’ve come a way since Newton.”

      Team Einstein was a fraud. Get over it. To keep the fraud going takes a great deal of maintenance. There is no wave-particle duality. Thats all just a lot of silly voodoo invented in an environment where the aether was outlawed. There is interaction between the aether, electrons and nucleons. Once you have that, there is no need for wave-particle duality and never has been. Wave particle duality is not a scientific concept. Its theological. Its like the trinity or some other theological jive. Not that I want to beat up on the trinity. This is just to point out that there is good science, bad science, good theology and bad theology. Wave particle duality is more in the bad theology subset. As is Einsteins key doctrines.

      Einsteins doctrines were designed to be not merely wrong, but impossible under any circumstances. They were set up as a control mechanism.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Hi Zoe,

    I found your theorie of The Case of two Different Fluxes very interesting. You end up with a CSR of some 295 W/m2 when the surface of the Earth is warmed from its internal heat to around 0 C. But the CSR depends on a difference in temperature between the object and it’s surroundings. The surface of the earth sees not into a void of 0k, but looks into the atmosphere which has a certain temperature. I found a rough estimate for the temperature of a clear blue sky during the day from around minus 40 C, 235K. Stefan-Boltzmann’s formula is in full: Ec = εσ(Tc⁴ – Tsky⁴) = εσ(273⁴ – 233⁴) = 133 W/m². On a warm, cloudy day the radiated energy will be even lower. Still a generous amount compared to the 91.6 mW/m² from CHF.

    Sincerely, Jan Smelik.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you

      That’s fine, Jan. My CSR is an absolute radiating potential value. Obviously what is further down the line will effect the radiative heat flux. But we are not interested in the radiative heat flux. The T of sky with clouds is still a function of solar and geothermal. How else would they get warmed?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: