Matter only cooling to matter Matters

About a year ago, researcher Willis Eschenbach proposed a simple problem at WUWT that relates conduction and radiation in order to show that, at steady state, Cold Side Radiation (CSR) equals Conductive Heat Flux (CHF), and that therefore my articles (here and here) “must” be in error. Here’s a brief outline:

Block in Space
Absorptivity = Emissivity = 0.95Thermal conductivity: k = 0.8 W/(m*K)
Volume = 1 m³ … A = L = 1No radiation to / from stars
Adiabatic Wall on 4 of 6 sidesInput = 1360 W/m² (~Sun at Earth Distance)
Problem Parameters

Willis’ solution setup was:

We have two conditions that must be met at steady-state. First, the amount of energy entering the block must be equal to the amount of energy leaving the block. The amount entering is equal to 1360 * epsilon, which I’ve said is the emissivity (and thus the absorptivity) at all frequencies. The amount leaving the block is equal to sigma epsilon (T_hot^4 +T_cold^4). So the first equation is:

sigma epsilon (T_hot^4 + T_cold^4) == 1360 epsilon [eqn1]

The second condition at steady-state is that the flow through the block has to be equal to the flow out of the cold side. The flow through the block is k (T_hot – T_cold), and the cold side radiation is sigma epsilon T_cold ^4, so the second equation is:

sigma epsilon T_cold^4 == k (T_hot – T_cold) [eqn2]

Willis’ Comment

The majority of commenters had pretty much the same idea. I will call Willis et al.‘s solution Wal for short, so as not to single out poor Willis.

Let’s clean up the equations:

This is actually a complicated simultaneous equation to solve by hand. I liked Greg’s gnuplot solution the best:

TemperatureRadiation
Sunny (Hot) Side383.338 K1163.2 W/m²
Far (Cold) Side221.410 K129.5 W/m²
Wal’s Steady State “Solution
2D Representation of “Solution”

So is this correct?

I’m afraid not. One of Wal’s two criteria is an insistence that the block must radiate out to empty space. The implicit justification for this is Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law, as Wikipedia explains:

That’s all good and well, but I don’t recall Boltzmann doing or analyzing experiments with radiation into the void of space, but only inside cavities. Are cavities matter or space?

And what is up with j*? What does the star mean? Wikipedia doesn’t go into that very important detail. But it does accidentally hint at it:

The fact that the energy density of the box containing radiation is proportional to T^4 can be derived using thermodynamics.

A box you say? Interesting. The star probably indicates a potential, not guaranteed radiation.

It is common for textbooks to completely leave out the detail and context of the development of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (SB Law). For example:

This gives the impression that a body will radiate into the void the space with nothing in sight. And so people who don’t know any better might assume that’s the case!

But how did that chapter begin?

Oh, it begins with a hot object inside a vaccum chamber! Later on …

Kirchoff’s Law is also derived from a “small body contained in a large isothermal enclosure”.

As you’re probably aware, SB Law is intimately connected to Planck’s Law. In fact, it’s just the integral over all wavelengths using Planck’s spectral density formula. So it’s very important to know how Planck derived his formula.

You caught it? “in a cavity”, “no net flow of energy between the body and its environment”.

But, if a body was forced to emit radiation to empty space, (without getting equal radiation in return) that would violate the “no net flow of energy between the body and its environment” rule. This is obviously not a problem “in a cavity”.

Planck’s law describes the unique and characteristic spectral distribution for electromagnetic radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, when there is no net flow of matter or energy. Its physics is most easily understood by considering the radiation in a cavity with rigid opaque walls. Motion of the walls can affect the radiation. If the walls are not opaque, then the thermodynamic equilibrium is not isolated. It is of interest to explain how the thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. There are two main cases: (a) when the approach to thermodynamic equilibrium is in the presence of matter, when the walls of the cavity are imperfectly reflective for every wavelength or when the walls are perfectly reflective while the cavity contains a small black body (this was the main case considered by Planck); or (b) when the approach to equilibrium is in the absence of matter, when the walls are perfectly reflective for all wavelengths and the cavity contains no matter.

Wikipedia

All I see is cavity, cavity, cavity. Where’s the radiation to nowhere? Nowhere. Let’s see the starting steps of Planck’s Law derivation:

Wikipedia

The derivation of Planck’s Law starts off by considering how much photon energy can fit in a box. As you can see, the dimension of the box matters! The intensity of photons in each wavelength is constrained by length (L)!

Only later is the volume of the box taken out to find the spectral density. The key thing to note is that you can only derive Planck’s Law by using Wave Theory, never Particle Theory. And you need these waves to go from matter to matter, never matter to nothing. If you try to think about waves going from matter to nothing, why would there be a constrained by length (L)? There would be no such constraint in this case. But if there’s no L constraint, then there should be no difference between intensity at different wavelengths. Then Planck’s Law would be wrong, the blackbody curve would be wrong, and SB Law would be wrong. They’re not wrong. There’s simply no emission from matter to NO thing.

For matter not enclosed in such a cavity, thermal radiation can be approximately explained by appropriate use of Planck’s law.

Wikipedia

The appropriate use of Planck’s Law and SB Law would incorporate the View Factor(s) between 2 or more surfaces.

The source gives a lot of examples of different view factors for different problems.

The main point is that actual heat transfer occurs between matter, never matter and nothing.

I like the resister analogy. Notice the space resistance. According to Wal’s theory, empty space has a view factor of 1, thus their space resistance is 1/A, or just 1 by chosen parameters. In actuality, empty space has a view factor of ZERO, and thus the resistance to emit to empty space is infinite. Thus it doesn’t happen.

What Wal would like to do is treat space as a surface with a view factor of 1, and drop the T₂ ( and ε₂ ) terms.

Let’s think about why this is physically inappropriate. If space really had a view factor of 1, every textbook heat transfer problem would have arrows drawn out in every direction from the hotter object, not just toward another surface. All those arrows would indicate a radiative drain on the hotter object. Every textbook would thus be incorrectly draining the hotter object and deceiving its students. Do you think textbooks are deceiving their students by offering a simplified view that neglects the “obvious” radiation to space?

Or maybe the more likely explanation is this radiation to empty space doesn’t happen?

Let’s see what NASA scientists think. Here’s a link to their paper: A METHOD FOR THE THERMAL ANALYSIS OF SPACECRAFT, INCLUDING ALL MULTIPLE REFLECTIONS AND SHADING AMONG DIFFUSE, GRAY SURFACES.

Source, Pages 10-11

Do you see the emission to empty space? Me neither. It doesn’t exist.

Now I know this paper is from 1970, but it’s the best I could find on the topic. Being right doesn’t change with time, so there’s no need to update the fundamentals. If you can find emission to space inside NASA’s formulas elsewhere, please let me know.

If the lack of emission to space in this document is wrong, then NASA’s scientists are underestimating the cooling, and thus risking the lives of astronauts. All of these simultaneous equations would give the wrong results if the emission to empty space actually occurred. Luckily it doesn’t, and astronauts landed on the moon and returned safely because of it.

I hope I have convinced you that there’s no emission (cooling) to empty space. Matter only cools to matter matters!


Let’s move on. The other problem with Wal’s theory is their understanding of what Steady State implies in their problem.

They think that steady state means you set the conductive flux equal to the radiative output of the cold side. Wrong!

You need to set the heat transfer of the input to the conductive flux.

They do not satisfy the third criteria. The “heat in” is not 1360 W/m², that’s only the input in the 1st second to a block at 0 Kelvin.

There is no heat out at all on the space side, as we just discussed.

The proper solution to the problem was the minority opinion:

Both sides will come to the same temperature of 393.534 Kelvin. We satisfy all steady state criteria. Disagree? Look again, the 2nd criteria says “can” not “must”.

Any questions?

Why was this example important? Because mainstream climate scientists also feel that greenhouse gases block radiation to nothing just because they sense a lot on a remote satellite, which is not nothing. 🤣. They too are in error, but this discussion will come later.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe

Clarification

I’m not suggesting an object can only cool if another object is present, only radiatively so. If an object’s internal energy is lowered, then it cools. Internal processes are not perpetual, they will degrade over time.

Update

A paper with no mention of heat transfer to space.

Published by Zoe Phin

https://phzoe.com

36 thoughts on “Matter only cooling to matter Matters

      1. The sun is a ball of plasma.
        The Sun’s dense plasma emits and fairly full blackbody spectrum of light.
        The Sun’s cornea is low density plasma which is million of degrees and does not emit in blackbody spectrum.
        I would say amount energy reaching Earth from Sun’s cornea is small {I would say small is less the 1 watt per square meter} though I imagine others could correct me and say that far less than 1 watt per square meter}.

        “The physics of BB radiation require a lattice, i.e a solid not a gas.”
        Liquid water has a structure. And would say that seems that plasma can have structure or lattice.
        And we have four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas and plasma.

        It also seems to me that gas can dense enough that it’s said to to have qualities of a liquid. Ie, wiki
        “Carbon dioxide usually behaves as a gas in air at standard temperature and pressure (STP), or as a solid called dry ice when cooled and/or pressurised sufficiently. If the temperature and pressure are both increased from STP to be at or above the critical point for carbon dioxide, it can adopt properties midway between a gas and a liquid. More specifically, it behaves as a supercritical fluid above its critical temperature (304.13 K, 31.0 °C, 87.8 °F) and critical pressure (7.3773 MPa, 72.8 atm, 1,070 psi, 73.8 bar), expanding to fill its container like a gas but with a density like that of a liquid.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_carbon_dioxide
        It seems if have such dense or supercritical gas, the gas might emit in broader spectrum or it could some kind structure or “lattice”.

        Like

        1. Pressure broadening does not make gases emit BB radiation, It makes the absorption lines thicker, and can make the spectrum continuous, but it’s still not BB. Just look at the spectrum from the highest pressurized gases we have available, then you can speculate. Please also address the topic of this article. I don’t want to diverge too far into an irrelevant discussion. Thank you.

          Like

        2. Zoe by definition liquids do not have structure. The current understanding of physics of the sun are in a sad state. The evidence for a metallic hydrogen model are probably the best fit of the data. Supercritical state will not give you BB radiation. I can send references when i get access to my computer but I suggest you watch lectures of Dr. Robaitaille (sky scholar) on YouTube regarding Planck’s, SB and Kirchoff’s law. This guy is a true experiments physicist who knows what he’s talking about

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I’m familiar with Pierre’s work and already subscribed to Sky Scholar. Thank you. I haven’t been able to get him to evaluate my work. But that’s OK because it still needs fixes and polishing.

          Like

        4. Yes you are looking in the right direction. I am actually trying to hire him so if I succeed I will mention you. Your science only grows via critical review by smart people with different perspectives. Keep going. Despite seeing some errors in your work over the years, Many of the things you publish mirror my own views. Keep going.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. No the sun is not a ball of plasma. Just get that idiotic idea out of your head. The idea that the sun is a ball of plasma, involves a NASA creation myth, that involves two implicit doctrines.

          1. The self-segregation of hydrogen from heavier elements.

          2. The self-compression of hydrogen.

          Since neither of these two things ever happened, can ever happen or will ever happen we have to send this NASA bullshit to the fires.

          As a caveat I must reaffirm that NASA never did anything wrong ever.

          Like

        6. “Zoe by definition liquids do not have structure.”

          I must say that this seems right. This seems logical. Its hard to picture how things could be otherwise. But in the case of water the evidence appears to be against your thesis. Reasonable as it appears to be.

          We can have an honest disagreement about water. Just never try and JIVE ME that the sun is all hydrogen plasma again. Because is an untenable idea. Forced upon us from the top down.

          Like

        7. “Zoe by definition liquids do not have structure. ”
          I couldn’t find that definition.
          Wiki:
          “Liquid is one of the four primary states of matter, with the others being solid, gas and plasma. A liquid is a fluid. Unlike a solid, the molecules in a liquid have a much greater freedom to move. The forces that bind the molecules together in a solid are only temporary in a liquid, allowing a liquid to flow while a solid remains rigid.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid

          Window glass also flows {very, very slowly]. In orbit, water forms into sphere, this due to water having surface tension:
          “Surface tension could be defined as the property of the surface of a liquid that allows it to resist an external force, due to the cohesive nature of the water molecules.”

          Like

        8. “Pressure broadening does not make gases emit BB radiation, It makes the absorption lines thicker, and can make the spectrum continuous, but it’s still not BB.”
          I general agree the gases aren’t losing much energy, or energy of gases is kinetic energy {mostly}. Or gases not moving are at zero Kelvin. Such frozen molecule {say had pile of them} might absorb and emit light and still at zero Kelvin.
          But what seems to talking is ideal BB radiation which depending it’s temperature emit a full spectrum of light {all electromagnetic spectrum [allowed if hot enough] but all solids are somewhat “selective” in spectrum they emit or ideal is not in real world.
          But it terms of solid vs gas. Dust is solid. There is a lot dust in atmosphere. But could say since dust “emits in full spectrum” how much is dust in in atmosphere and the variation of amount dust in atmosphere is significant “controlling” global climate. No one has much of clue how much dust in Earth atmosphere. And no one has much of clue how dust fall into Earth from Space. It said it’s hundreds of tons per year.
          “Estimates vary of how much cosmic dust and meteorites enter Earth’s atmosphere each day, but range anywhere from 5 to 300 metric tons, with estimates made from satellite data and extrapolations of meteorite falls. Thing is, no one really knows for sure and so far there hasn’t been any real coordinated efforts to find out. But a new project proposal called Cosmic Dust in the Terrestrial Atmosphere (CODITA) would provide more accurate estimates of how much material hits Earth, as well as how it might affect the atmosphere.”
          https://www.universetoday.com/94392/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth/

          Like

  1. We turn off the heat source and imagine a 0K surface with view factor 1 to the “cold” (or “warm”) side suddenly appearing at a distance d from you 393K block, would the block cool during the first d/c seconds? And if we were to try and fool the heat transfer by flipping the 0K surface to view factor 0 before d/c seconds have elapsed? I think you will answer that the block starts to cool instantaneously. But then photons cannot be the energy carriers. It seems that by flipping between view factor 0 and 1, we could communicate faster than light….

    Like

      1. The same way you flip a table upright. Imagine a very large but very thin sheet. When you flip to zero, there can be no heat transport according to you, and hence the cooling of the block will have to stop imediately, and likewise when you flip to 1 the cooling will have to imediately start again.

        Like

  2. 1. NASA talks about _net_ flow and the sign of a flow tells you the direction (in or out) of the _net_ flow and hence the direction of the arrow. Positive flow is in the direction of the arrow and negative flow is the opposite direction.

    2. Why is Kirchhoff using this _large_ isothermal enclosure? Think about it!

    3. You said:

    > Let’s think about why this is physically inappropriate. If space really
    > had a view factor of 1, every textbook heat transfer problem would have
    > arrows drawn out in every direction from the hotter object, not just
    > toward another surface. All those arrows would indicate a radiative
    > drain on the hotter object. Every textbook would thus be incorrectly
    > draining the hotter object and deceiving its students. Do you think
    > textbooks are deceiving their students by offering a simplified view
    > that neglects the “obvious” radiation to space?

    You are confusing heat transfer (transferring heat from one object to another) and thermal radiation. Heat transfer is exchange of thermal energy between two objects. So if a textbook talks about heat transfer it must consider at leat two objects. In radiative heat transfer from object A to object B you only consider the fraction of the radiation leaving object A’s surface that interacts with B’s surface. The rest of the radiation is irrelevant for the heat transfer from A to B and hence not shown in textbooks. But that does not imply that there is no other radiation away from A.

    If you shine a torch into night’s sky your battery will be dead after a couple of hours independent if the light (electromagnetic radiation) interacts with an object or not.

    Thermal radiation is the conversion from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. If heat transfer happens or not is only determined as soon as the thermal radiation interacts with an other object which might be light years away. But object A lost its thermal energy as soon as it radiates.

    If you don’t think so, then please provide a physical experiment! Not a thought experiment. An experiment anyone here can agree on and reproduce in nature.

    4. The amount of radiation sensed by remote satellites is independent of how many satellites there are and we on earth do not experience different temperature (cooling / heating) with more or less satellites.

    Like

    1. 1) NASA shows no arrow to space. Wal does. Wal’s arrow has an effect on the equations. NASA doesn’t acknowledge it. Who should we listen to?

      2) What’s your point?

      3) “The rest of the radiation is irrelevant for the heat transfer from A to B and hence not shown in textbooks. But that does not imply that there is no other radiation away from A.”

      Irrelevant? Every student will misjudge how much A actually cools. Then they will work for NASA and people will die.

      “If you shine a torch into night’s sky your battery will be dead after a couple of hours independent if the light (electromagnetic radiation) interacts with an object or not.”

      Your battery can only produce a given amount of molecular motion. This is not proof of cooling to space.

      “If you don’t think so, then please provide a physical experiment! Not a thought experiment. An experiment anyone here can agree on and reproduce in nature.”

      LOL. This is pure projection. Cavity experiments are all heat transfer, and it is YOUR thought experiment that there’s radiation to nowhere. YOU have no evidence for your way of thinking. That’s what this post was all about.

      4) Huh? Satellites are tiny and they come to more or less an equilbrium.

      Like

    2. > NASA shows no arrow to space. Wal does. Wal’s arrow has an effect on the equations. NASA doesn’t acknowledge it. Who should we listen to?

      NASA’s picture has arrows pointing out! Because the sign the variables are different. Look at the equation below the figure. You have to read sources and not just look at fancy pictures without understanding their meaning. NASA and Wal are using the same picture. You are just not willing to read it.

      > Irrelevant? Every student will misjudge how much A actually cools. Then they will work for NASA and people will die.

      They won’t die because students know the difference between heat transfer and radiation. That is why no one died on the ISS or on the moon landing.

      > Your battery can only produce a given amount of molecular motion. This is not proof of cooling to space.

      A torch radiates (also in thermal spectrum). What will be the difference with respect to heat on your torch if you point it into empty space (no heat transfer) or on your face (heat transfer)?

      > LOL. This is pure projection. Cavity experiments are all heat transfer, and it is YOUR thought experiment that there’s radiation to nowhere. YOU have no evidence for your way of thinking. That’s what this post was all about.

      If you want to proof someone wrong then you should provide the experiment for your idea.

      For example: The far side of the moon is always facing away from earth, i.e., it is facing space. If this side gets moon night the temperature drops from toasty 400K to freezing 90K. Where does the heat go?

      Like

      1. “You have to read sources and not just look at fancy pictures without understanding their meaning.”

        Ironic. I’m the only one that read it. You seem to think radiative heat transfer to other parts of the spaceship that are in view is actually arrows to space. They’re not. Show me which term is for radiation to space. There is none.

        “What will be the difference with respect to heat on your torch if you point it into empty space (no heat transfer) or on your face (heat transfer)?”

        The battery will run out at the same time in both scenarios, assuming there is no regulator, which typically there is not.

        “If this side gets moon night the temperature drops from toasty 400K to freezing 90K. Where does the heat go?”

        The sun that was making it hot, is no longer in view, and therefore it will cool to the internal energy of the moon … but it can’t do it fast enough before the sun comes out again. There’s no output to space, there is simply less input. I take no issue with cooling due to decline in input.

        Like

        1. –“If this side gets moon night the temperature drops from toasty 400K to freezing 90K. Where does the heat go?”

          The sun that was making it hot, is no longer in view, and therefore it will cool to the internal energy of the moon … but it can’t do it fast enough before the sun comes out again. There’s no output to space, there is simply less input. I take no issue with cooling due to decline in input.–

          So, the world I live in, the sun dumping vast amount energy into space, but your world is sun dumping a tiny amount of energy into space heating pin pricks which are the planet tens of millions of km from it. Even all were planets close to the Sun, there are tiny in comparison to the Sun. So at Earth distance, we are on average 149.6 million km from the Sun and small Moon, “looks” about same size as Sun, because Sun is far away and Moon is relatively quite close to Earth.

          Or if center of Sun was same distance center of Moon from center of Earth, Earth would be in the Sun. If surface of Sun was same distance as center of Moon, Earth sky would be the Sun during the day, though would start to see edge of sun around dawn and sunset. Though if more towards polar region, you always see edge of Sun and earth blocking – it wouldn’t look like round ball. {though wouldn’t look round ball anywhere- but one could figure out the was spherical- and have “the theory of the spherical Sun”- though no one could actually live on this molten planetary ball which could see this Sun}. Anyhow, as viewed from the Sun, all planet are like dark stars in a vast universe of brighter stars {though due their vast distances the bright stars do appear smaller]. Or Venus is third brightest object {after Sun and Moon} and can appear as “brightness star”, and from Sun Venus would also as brightest star. And I guess Mercury is second. And our moon would be quite dim and small- I would guess slightly smaller dimmer than Mars- though at Mars aphelion it probably dimmer than Moon. But both would appear bigger than closest stars

          Like

        2. “So, the world I live in, the sun dumping vast amount energy into space, but your world is sun dumping a tiny amount of energy into space heating pin pricks which are the planet tens of millions of km from it.”

          Exactly. Did you read my article on Heat Flux in the Sun? Why is it so small? Shouldn’t it be 63 MW just like it supposedly emits?

          The sun is hot, and it cools much slower than thought.

          Like

        3. “The sun releases energy at a mass–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, which produces the equivalent of 384.6 septillion watts (3.846×10^26 W). To put that in perspective, this is the equivalent of about 9.192×10^10 megatons of TNT per second, or 1,820,000,000 Tsar Bombas – the most powerful thermonuclear bomb ever built!”
          https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sun-energy.html

          Or 3.846×10^20 Megawatt watts. 384,600,000,000,000,000,000 MW

          Like

        4. And what if there is no thermonuclear reactions?
          What if the solar system is a homopolar motor?
          The sun has 99% of solar system mass, but the planets have 99% of the momentum.
          This momentum plus aether torsion creates a trillion simultaneous lightning bolts on the sun. And that’s what we see.

          Like

        5. “And what if there is no thermonuclear reactions?
          What if the solar system is a homopolar motor?”
          So, universe is steady state and didn’t begin with a big bang and starting H2 only, in which stars create all the elements within their nuclear furnaces?
          Or do only some stars make the elements and Sol is not such a star?

          Why does the sun emit oxygen that blacken the Moon. Why is our sun common and there is so much oxygen in our Universe? Or our Moon is thought to be about 40% of it’s mass being oxygen. {not from our star, but stars before our star].

          Like

        6. Oops, our sun doesn’t make Oxygen but it has a fair amount oxygen.
          “The Sun is a small main sequence star. It does not produce oxygen via fusion. It can’t. The temperature and pressure in the Sun’s core are too low. Fusion in the Sun is currently limited to production of helium. This will remain the case for several billion years.

          That said, there is oxygen in the Sun, about 1% by mass. This oxygen was produced long ago by other stars at the end stages of their lives”
          https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12381/what-happens-to-oxygen-produced-on-the-sun-or-other-stars#:~:text=The%20Sun%20is%20a%20small,Sun's%20core%20are%20too%20low.

          I thought made stuff other than helium. But I thought it rare for our sun to make other stuff other than Helium, but apparently that not true {according to the above- though “the above” could be wrong:) }

          Like

        7. “The sun has 99% of solar system mass, but the planets have 99% of the momentum.
          This momentum plus aether torsion creates a trillion simultaneous lightning bolts on the sun. And that’s what we see.”

          Do planets have 99% of the momentum. Perhaps 99% of orbital momentum.

          As analogy, suppose Earth and Moon wasn’t orbiting the Sun {if was orbiting Sun, Earth has greater orbital momentum than the Moon}. Would isolated Earth/Moon system mean the Moon has 99% of momentum?
          One can say Earth has spin which is significant amount of momentum. So, one exclude spin by saying Moon has 99% of orbital momentum. But is that true?
          Or would say the Earth does orbit around the Earth/moon Barycenter- and without doing the math, Earth might have more 1% of the orbital Momentum. Or Earth is moving and has 80 times more mass than the Moon.

          But anyhow, let’s accept planets have 99% of the momentum. Was there point in time, when the planets had “99.1” of the momentum and will be a time when the planets 98.9% of momentum. And how much time is involved, millions or billions of year. Or is it “a oh my god, AOC”, we got 12 years to do something or we going to impact the Sun!!

          Also orbital momentum or momentum might be a bit unclear. So, to illustrate, which has more momentum Earth or Pluto? If answer is Pluto, then I might say we {the Sol solar system] might have a near infinite source of momentum}.
          Earth mass: 5.97 x 10^24
          Pluto mass: 1.46 x 10^22 and average orbital velocity of 4.67 km/sec {earth’s around 30 km/sec}
          So those number indicate Earth has much more. But if were to spiral down to earth distance, then Pluto travels at about 30 km/sec at Earth distance from the Sun, but requires a large amount energy to spiral down to earth distance. And seems it’s some kind of spiraling towards the sun, which one talking about in terms of momentum. Or 1 kg of mass further out than Pluto has more momentum than 1 kg of Pluto mass. And one might want to know how kg of mass is beyond Pluto and how mass beyond Pluto is being added to our solar system from rest galaxy/universe per year- both in sense temporary as in flybies and those being captured by our solar system. Though one might be only interested in bodies with a significant magnetic field. So perhaps mainly Earth, and the gas giants. Or perhaps we really only “practically” concerned with Jupiter. Or oh my god, AOC, Jupiter is coming to get us in 12 years.

          “Scientists in Sweden say that Jupiter – largest planet in our solar system – formed 4 times farther away from the sun than its current orbit. They believe it moved inward toward the sun in a journey lasting 700,000 years.”
          https://earthsky.org/space/jupiter-journey-toward-sun-orbit

          Like

  3. Great work Zoe. I’m over at Joannes place affecting to be a stern schoolmaster. But really I am your biggest fan. I’m here to caution you into getting into that bipolar idea of the null hypothesis and some other hypothesis. Thats not the way reality works. If you have an idea, and its maybe six times better than the mainstreams idea, then the temptation is to either call your idea or the mainstreams idea out as “the null hypothesis” Okay if thats the way it goes I would say you’ve already won the argument, as I judge your ideas as better than the mainstream ….. I’m free forming a bit here but work with me.

    But that whole procedure is wrong. You being a frustrated genius can see that your ideas are often head and shoulders above the mainstream dogma. So by the mainstreams own rules we should already be carrying you on our shoulders and getting the young mothers to hold up their toddlers so that the toddlers can get a better view of you.

    But not only are their dogmas wrong. Not only are their rules misused and their standards applied with hypocrisy. Their whole methodology is wrong. So don’t be appealing to their failed epistemology to get your own ideas off the ground. You carry a much bigger burden than that.

    Like

  4. Great work Zoe. I’m over at Joannes place affecting to be a stern schoolmaster. But really I am your biggest fan. I’m here to caution you into getting into that bipolar idea of the null hypothesis and some other hypothesis. Thats not the way reality works. If you have an idea, and its maybe six times better than the mainstreams idea, then the temptation is to either call your idea or the mainstreams idea out as “the null hypothesis” Okay if thats the way it goes I would say you’ve already won the argument, as I judge your ideas as better than the mainstream ….. I’m free forming a bit here but work with me.

    But that whole procedure is wrong. You being a frustrated genius can see that your ideas are often head and shoulders above the mainstream dogma. So by the mainstreams own rules we should already be carrying you on our shoulders and getting the young mothers to hold up their toddlers so that the toddlers can get a better view of you.

    But not only are their dogmas wrong. Not only are their rules misused and their standards applied with hypocrisy. Their whole methodology is wrong. So don’t be appealing to their failed epistemology to get your own ideas off the ground. You carry a much bigger burden than that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There’s some problems with my ideas, but strangely no one pointed those out before I figured it out. The only criticisms I’ve had were all wrong. I will fix my geothermal mistakes soon.

      Like

  5. “The evidence for a metallic hydrogen model are probably the best fit of the data.”

    No no no. Hydrogen is not a metal. Its a gas. It has no metallic state. Now lets get this right about the sun. Zoe is onto the right idea when she sees our planet as a proto-star.

    We see that you need a whole lot of mass to hold hydrogen into a planet. Hydrogen cannot hold itself, or self-compress despite heritage formulae.

    The bigger the planet is the more hydrogen and protons that planet can hold. So Venus can only hold hydrogen in its H2S04 clouds. Otherwise pristine hydrogen escapes from Venus. Hydrogen is always escaping from Earth as the satellite data shows. So lucky we produce more of our own all the time.

    Mars held water, but only back when it revolved around a gas giant (no such thing really) that was dosing Mars with a continual proton wind. Or otherwise it must have once had a massive CO2 atmosphere and maybe that helped the hydrogen stay put in form of water. But this is implausible really.

    The deal is that moons grow to stars grow to planets grow to gas giants (no such thing) grow to stars grow to bigger stars. AND AT EVERY STAGE THEY GET BETTER AT HOLDING WATER.

    You see the sun’s behaviour can only be explained by the reality that its retained its oceans. And so the sun is unstable. Because you have this heated and highly pressurised water, at the cusp of going in for an explosive phase change. Only my model explains the suns behaviour and no other model comes close.

    Like

  6. I read all the comments over at Watts… and came away as from reading Beckmann’s Einstein Plus 2. I had to quit trying to follow the math and at the end, felt lost. This exercise was like reading ahead into the thermodynamics chapter of Halliday & Resnick, and being told–to my huge relief–we would skip that chapter. Suppose I’d bet money on the outcome, would I pay out or collect?
    Finally, I had to look up adiabatic. It’s like frictionless, massless, etc. and made me recall a physicist explaining that I was not going to insulate a geodesic dome and stop the heat from moving because the insulation would at best only slow the rate of heat transfer. So chastened, and worried (albeit entertained) at the time I spent on stuff that’s over my head, I’d best get a move on. Keep up the good fight and may the best confirming experiment win.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “I still don’t understand how you flip to “invisible”.”

    If you want to use a satellite to measure incoming radiation from the sun, you better have your sensor pointing towards the sun. If the sensor is a thin sheet and you flip it 90 degrees, no rays will hit it. That’s all.Not invisible, but oriented in a positon that makes the view factor 0 in terms of incoming rays,

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: