Saturday, January 26, 2008

The Weather (continued)

What is it about the upper air, as a result of diminishing area, being forced down into the slower moving returning air that creates the weather?
We were introduced to the concept of ice flecs in the last chapter on field replacement. Because water disappears when it is boiled and when it is placed in a pan under the sun, science’s monkey say process of analogizing concludes the same process is at work in both cases. If water is in the atmosphere, it evaporated just like boiling water evaporates. There’s nothing unique about rain, it just came from a bigger pot of water. When we see a storm brewing, we look for a body of water that could have produced the storm, and that’s it. We get this pablum from a science that can’t even tell us how heat is transferred in the atmosphere. We hear endless references to hot air rising above colder air, but other than assuming the hot air must have been heated by the sun, we are stuck in place, with weather being a confluence of local conditions. In fact, following the mistaken conclusion that the Earth absorbs the sun’s rays during the day and radiates them at night, meteorologists have concluded that the earth is heated by the sun and that’s the source of all weather. Because this explains no weather, science has added conduction, the contact of the air with the heated earth and subsequent contact with other areas, giving the air more movement, and convection, the catch-all that finds currents of air moving from one place to another, with only the existence of these convection currents attesting to their movement (which is to say, we found heat flowing from here to there, so it must be doing so as a result of a convection current).
None of this provides a cohesive explanation of how, or even why, heat moves in the atmosphere, just ad hoc explanations for local heat movement. But then, science is nothing but a bunch of ad hoc explanations for reality that have one thing in common, mass/gravity. If we start off examining exactly what might be happening, and the context in which it is happening, we can get a clearer picture of just what is going on. The context is the circulating air masses that move up and down the planet and happening part is exactly what happens when water is left out in the sun.
If we pick a point on the circulating air masses, we would have to choose the equator if for the only reason that we are examining what is causing the water to disappear. The equator is filled with sunlight under which vast amounts of water can disappear. The question is, what’s the process that the water undergoes to disappear? It certainly isn’t evaporating like boiling water disappears. It’s ludicrous to think that the equatorial waters are boiling. What evidence is that that the water is disappearing at all? Science can’t claim that a pan of water left out in the sunlight to disappear behaves differently than the water sitting under the sunlight at the equator. If one disappears, the other must also disappear. It’s not turning into steam, so where is it going?
The answer lies at the molecular level. If the water is disappearing, then it must be in a form other than water. In a world where chemistry can alter the molecular structure of just about everything with the simple application of energy, this shouldn’t seem the least bit beyond our powers of reason. But for a science that has mindlessly viewed the disappearance of water as the same as boiling water, it’s novel. And for a science that doesn’t keep up with technology, it’s an impossibility. For instance, what technology separates two elements, one of them oxygen, using energy in the form of electricity. One of the most common elements in our existence, aluminum. Aluminum molecules come with two atoms of the element combined with three atoms of oxygen. Passing electricity through the molecule separates the molecular binding of the two and the heavier aluminum atoms sink to the bottom.
Instead of electricity, the energy of sunlight is striking the water molecule, breaking its molecular bond. The oxygen atom is heavier than the hydrogen atom, but both are lighter than the atmosphere, so they rise. (The atmosphere is composed of diatomic nitrogen and oxygen atoms, atoms held in pairs, and therefore is composed of atom pairs with twice the atomic weight of the individual chemical elements. While the released hydrogen atom remains in diatomic form, it’s still much lighter than the atmosphere. The oxygen atom is not diatomic, so it is also lighter than the atmosphere, which is composed of diatomic atoms. With unequal weight pf the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, they rise at different rates and are unable to recombine into water, which they might do if they were in a confined space.
To be continued)

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Weather (continued)

How can we all be living in the lower air mass if we’re going different speeds? The lower air mass is speeding up as it returns. The Earth is turning, and as it does so, it’s carrying us along at the speed it’s turning. However, we aren’t aware of the speed for one simple reason, the atmosphere is turning at the same speed we are, give or take a few miles per hour, and this means the air at the equator is moving at about 1,000 mph while the air at the Pole is not moving at all. The air in between these points is moving at whatever speed the circumference of the Earth dictates at that point. The air moving toward the Pole starts out at about 1,000 mph and ends up at 0 mph, while the atmosphere returning beneath it starts out at 0 mph and ends up traveling at about 1,000 mph. You do the math. Don’t bother, it’s quite simple, the air that is moving toward the Pole has to slow down, the air moving back down to the equator from the Pole has to speed up.
So we have air we know is moving down close to the Earth beneath the air moving toward the equator, and we know by mathematically measuring it that it is speeding up. But that’s not the only part of the story that puts meteorologists into a mindless bind from which all the absurd models created by the most sophisticated (and expensive) computer technology can produce will never be able to extract it. This part of the story is also mathematically verifiable. It never ceases to amaze me how an empirical science who’s claim to validity is based on mathematics, produces concepts, turns those concepts into laws, then ignores the measurements of reality when they conflict with its made up laws.
The atmosphere is traveling toward the Pole over areas of the Earth with decreasing circumferences. Although it is traveling several miles up, we’ll use the Earth’s circumference to measure the increasingly confining spaces the atmosphere is moving into. When the atmosphere begins its journey to the Pole, the circumference is 15,000 miles. What is combined with circumference to determine volume? That’s a simple mathematical answer, radius. Rounding off, we can say the radius of the Earth at the equator is 4,000 miles. The radius of the Earth at the Pole is also about 4,000 miles. However, we aren’t measuring the radius of the Earth, we are measuring the radius of the circumference to its center as the circumference of the atmosphere moving to the Poles decreases. Thus, at the equator, it might be 4,000 miles, but further north it would be 3,000 miles, then 2,000 miles until it reached the Pole, at which point it would be zero.
The areas the atmosphere has to occupy is getting smaller and smaller the further toward the Pole it moves. Not only is the atmosphere being forced into a smaller area, it is doing so when it is traveling faster than the Earth beneath it. Both the Earth and the atmosphere are traveling in the same direction, from east to west, but the further toward the Pole the atmosphere is moving, the slower the Earth is traveling from east to west. What’s the obvious result? As the atmosphere is moving into smaller areas, it is forced down into the atmosphere beneath it, and this atmosphere is traveling at the same from east to west as the Earth at any point on the Earth’s surface. Thus, the faster moving air is forced down into the slower moving air. As clouds form they are still moving faster than the surface of the Earth and that’s why the clouds move from west to east. They are moving faster than the surface of the Earth is moving. It also explains the Jet Stream.
Meteorology could have figured all this out, including the obvious fact that friction with the surface of the Earth is what causes the atmosphere, once it is forced down, and, through intermixing, sometimes in violent ways, with the slower atmosphere heading back to the equator, to produce the weather that is so difficult to predict (again, satellite tracking is not predicting, its just more accurate forecasting), if it weren’t for the obvious fact that the friction with the Earth is speeding up the returning atmosphere is fiction, a made-up scientific fact. It has to be fiction because, according to empirical science, the Earth has been spinning frictionlessly in space for 5 billion years. The fact that it’s spinning is proof that its surface does not produce friction with the atmosphere. Ergo, meteorology could not explain reality by using factual reality to describe what is obviously happening. It is a science, or at least it seeks to be a science, and to be a science, become a respected member of the empirical community instead of just a bunch of mystical forecasters, it had to conform to the empirical code of laws, the basic one being gravity is a property of and proportional to mass, and that law is based on the known fact the Earth has been spinning frictionlessly in space for 5 billion years.
In short, we, in all our wisdom, are just as ignorant as those who claimed the Earth couldn’t be orbiting the sun because if it were, we’d all be blown off.
To be continued)

Saturday, January 12, 2008

The Weather (continued)

This is what meteorology sold in exchange for the opportunity to become a real science, one that measured the reality of the winds and rain that is the basis of our existence.
Meteorology has been forced to make one conclusion, while ignoring completely the logical consequences of that conclusion, because it has agreed with science on Newton’s folly that the rotation of the Earth isn’t affected by weather. The factual model of the weather that has emerged from meticulously measurements of the atmosphere shows two giant circular flows of air, one flowing north, the other flowing south. The air rises at the equator and flows north and south. The air flowing to the Poles rises and travels over the air moving back to the equator. The air moving back to the equator travels beneath the above layer of air. If we confine our discussion to the Northern Hemisphere, we have a giant circulation of air, with the northerly moving air masses passing over the southerly moving masses that are hugging the ground.
This is a factual statement of how the air circulates. It has been derived from the statistical data from an untold number of weather balloons. This is true science, the collection of facts, and not the science we’re talking about, the science that creates basic assumptions out of thin air (or the ruminations of dead men who knew nothing) and then impose those assumptions as received wisdom. However, when facts contradict theory, the facts are the first to go. Here, facts disagree with the iron clad rule that the atmosphere doesn't affect the rotation of the planet, so the fact that the Earth’s atmosphere is circulating is disconnected from the fact that the circulation physically demonstrates the atmosphere does affect the Earth's rotation.
What is the actual connection?
When we walk outside on a calm day, we don’t get blown over. It’s as simple as that. We’ll discuss how the northward moving air masses create the weather shortly, but for now we know that lower moving air masses are the masses of air we live in. Models constructed from weather balloons do not suggest three air masses, one moving north, the other moving south, with the third mass hugging the Earth. They demonstrate that we live in the lower moving air mass.
However, we’re all moving at different speeds depending on where we’re located on the planet. When we stand on the equator, we are traveling at about a 1,000 mps. As we move towards the Pole, the circumference of the Earth becomes smaller, and our rate of speed diminishes. When we reach the Pole, and we are standing on it, we are not traveling at any speed, we are merely turning in a very slow circle, one that takes 24 hours to complete. We’re still going about 67,000 mph as the Earth obits the sun, but where we are on the surface has nothing to do with that speed.
We travel with the Earth’s rotation, and the speed of that travel is determined by the circumference of the Earth at the place we re standing. If we round the circumference at the equator off to 25,000 miles, then we are traveling 25,000 miles in a 24-hour period. If the circumference of the Earth where we are standing is 16,000 miles, we are traveling 16,000 miles in a 24-hour period. Dividing the circumference by the hours, we find at the equator, we are traveling at 1,042 mph while at the 16,000-mile circumference point, we’re traveling at 667 mph. When we get to the Pole, we are traveling at zero mph. We are standing still turning in a circle at the rate of one full turn every 24 hours.
(To be continued)

Saturday, January 5, 2008

The Weather (continued)

Weather prediction, once the morning after joke, was wrapped in a cloak of scientific certainty when the only thing that changed during the sixties and seventies was the accuracy derived from being able to more accurately track a weather’s progress as it moved beneath satellites across the countryside. In return, science got a guarantee from the newly minted field of meteorology that it would ignore the obvious, that the weather affected acutely the rotation of the planet and therefore the planet needed a source of motion to keep it rotating. This obvious reality, the circulating atmosphere, its slowing down and speeding up, had to be left out of the billion dollar models of the weather meteorologists produce, and in their place, a nonexistent force plugged in to screw up the entire process. That’s on top of the major problem, that because it is not in the public eye, empirical science hasn’t had to make up a fiction about how heat is transported in the atmosphere, probably as important, if not more important, than the friction of the Earth with the atmosphere.
Why can’t the Earth’s atmosphere affect the rotation of the atmosphere? Because some 4.6 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million years, shockwaves from adjacent supernovas disturbed the molecular cloud that would become the solar system (notice how nothing in this statement tells us anything about anything). Fortunately, the area of this pre-solar nebula was approximately the same as the area of the solar system, and, as it turned out, the “mass” and composition of the pre-solar nebula, praise the Lord, was approximately the same as the “mass” and composition of the solar system it would turn into.
Note how science is thinking backward. We know what the solar system is, so we can make up a bunch of gobbledygook explaining how it got that way, then use how it is to justify the gobbledygook. I might be accused of doing the same thing, but I ask the question, what are the current forces that would produce the current solar system we measure. Science, however, stops in its tracks, and puts all questions of future motion into the concept of the angular momentum. What exactly is this concept, and I emphasize the word concept? Why, it’s Newton’s made up law that an object in motion will stay in motion unless a force acts on that object to change the motion, only placed as the motive force for solar system.
That’s why it all comes back to Newton and his bogus Celestial Mechanics. Any Rocketeers who follow Newtonian mechanics won’t have their rockets last long enough to rush in one of the indispensable course correction teams that make space travel possible in spite of Newton. We’ll dissect Newton with all his warts in a later chapter, but for now I’ll note that Newton had no problem with force because for him all force was sourced in one place, God, a fact that science acknowledges in practice by putting all questions of current force in the solar system off limits with its mumbo jumbo while failing to point out that the theory that mumbo jumbo is based on, and again I stress that word theory, based itself on God.
(To be continued)