Effects of Gravity on the IR Quantum/Waves Frequency: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

WE analyse the effect of gravity on the frequency of incident solar quantum/waves upon the surface, and on the quantum/waves emitted by the surface and the atmosphere.    This analysis shows that the IR quantum/waves emitted from the surface towards the atmosphere and the isotropic IR quantum/waves radiated by atmosphere lose energy by the effect of gravity, enough as to contradict a supposed “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere by exaggerated thermal properties of the “greenhouse gases”.

The theory dealing with the effect of gravity on quantum/waves radiation was proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905 [1, 2]. This theory was followed by the release of Einstein’s concepts and calculations on induced negative absorption [2].

So the effect of pressure on EM quantum waves as the induced negative absorption have been verified empirically [6] and have been applied to high tech laboratory devices (lasers, cyclotrons, plasma chambers, etc.), as for domestic technologies (microwave ovens), most of them patented by engineers.

Mass is associated with matter, although energy also possesses effective inertial mass. Is it possible to think about mass without associating it with matter? Yes, it is possible. To do this, we have to stop associating mass with matter, i.e. all matter possesses mass; however, mass is not only related to matter.

Electromagnetic energy has effective inertial mass. The same is true for internal energy that is determined by the absorbed electromagnetic energy. Unquestionably, we can apply the same concept to kinetic energy and potential energy.

Remember that, although the units to express mass are the same units that we use for weight, mass is not weight or vice-versa.

We do know the definition of matter is incomplete and inadequate; nevertheless, our poor definition of matter yet is useful on defining weight.

Weight is the attraction force exerted on a body by effect of gravity. For example, a rock on the Earth’s surface is attracted by means of the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on the rock and it depends on the Earth’s mass and the mass of the rock. Such force is what we know as weight. If we take the same rock and place it on the surface of the Moon, the mass of the rock does not change, but its weight decreases because the gravitational force on the Moon exerted on the matter placed on its surface is lower than that on Earth.

On the other hand, mass is the amount of concentrated energy in a given region of space [3]. This definition of mass relates energy with matter because matter actually is condensed energy, and mass and energy are properties of matter. [3]

Therefore, energy has effective inertial mass and its equivalent in gravitational mass [6]. IR quantum/waves have gravitational mass which is equivalent to their effective inertial mass.

The effective inertial mass of a single quantum/wave is analogous to (hf)/c^2; hence, we apply this formula to calculate the gravitational mass of quantum/waves, which is written in the following form:

  (gH)/c^2

Where g is the gravity acceleration 9.8 cm/s^2, H is height (for the Earth’s troposphere, the average is 7.7 x 10^5 cm), and c^2 is the speed of light raised to the second power.

Analysis

The formula to calculate the fraction of frequency change is as follows:

Δf/f = (gH)/c^2               [6]

Where Δf is the change of the quantum/wave frequency due to gravity, f is the instantaneous frequency of the quantum/wave, g is the gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2, H is altitude and c^2 is the speed of light raised to the second power.

Up to an altitude of 770000 cm, the average altitude of the Earth’s troposphere, the fraction of frequency of the IR quantum/waves radiated from the ground and outgoing to the space, with a frequency of 4.3 × 1014 Hz, is:

Δf/f = (gH)/c^2

Introducing magnitudes:

Δf/4.3 × 1014 Hz = (980 cm/s^2 * 770000 cm)/ (2.99792458 x 10^10 cm/s)^2 = 8.396 x 10^(-13)

And the displacement of the frequency Δf is:

Δf = 4.3 × 1014 Hz * (8.396 x 10^(-13)) = 361.03 Hz

Notice that the change of frequency is very low; however, it has a significant effect on energy density and wavelength.

For the circumstances of visible light, Δf is:

Δf = 7.9 x 10^14 Hz [(9.8 x 10^2 (cm/s^2)*(770000 cm))/(2.99792458 x 10^10 (cm/s))^2] =

= 7.9 x 10^14 Hz [(7.546 x 10^8 (cm^2/s^2)/(8.987551 x 10^20 (cm^2/s^2))] = 663.3 Hz

Consequently, the power of an IR quantum/wave emitted from the ground towards the atmosphere is lower at a height of  7.7 km than at the boundary layer surface-atmosphere. In other words, the energy density of the quantum/wave is lower at higher altitudes than at the surface level in the finite moment that the quantum/wave is emitted [5] (U = a *T^4). Therefore, the air immediately above the surface is warmed further than the air at higher heights.

The same observable fact occurs to quantum/waves that are emitted by the air. Considering the frequency of IR quantum/waves emitted towards the space by the air layer immediately above the surface, we obtain a change of frequency of 4.61 Hz.

The resistance to the onward movement of quantum/waves exerted by the Earth’s gravity causes a reduction of the frequency if the radiation is emitted toward minor altitudes. For example, the change of frequency of a quantum/wave emitted by the surface towards the upper limit of 10 meters, above the ground, is 0.86 Hz.

Nevertheless, the frequency of quantum/waves decrease as it goes farther away from the emitter; for example, at 7.7 km of altitude, the change of quantum/wave frequency is 663.3 Hz, and the final frequency ff is:

ff = 7.9 x 10^14 Hz – 663.3 Hz = 7.89 x 10^14 Hz

From here, we conclude that the IR quantum/wave’s redshift due to the gravitational force of Earth is quite evident.

By calculating the average tropospheric radius, for an IR quantum/wave frequency of 7.9 x 10^14 Hz, we obtained Graph 1.

Notice that the change of frequency is linear while the resulting frequency is a continuous non-linear curve (a polynomial function). As the IR Quantum/Waves travel towards the space, their Frequency decreases; consequently, the energy density in IR Quantum/Waves also decreases.

Graph 2 depicts the energy density of IR Quantum/Waves as they travel from the surface towards the outer space, although the plot only represents 7.7 km of altitude from the total altitude of Earth’s troposphere.

I have added linear trend lines to both curves to provide evidence of the non-linear trend in both properties of IR quantum/waves. The energy density of the quantum/waves magnitudes is proportional to the final frequency; specifically, to a higher frequency, a higher energy density; to a lower frequency, a lower energy density. This requires the application of thermodynamics of non-linear systems, specifically, quantum thermodynamics, i.e. the procedures I have been applying on these calculations.

Therefore, the formula to calculate the final frequency f’ is:

f’/cm = f (1-(gH/rc^2))

Where f’ is the resulting frequency, f is is the initial frequency, and r is the Earth’s troposphere’s radius. For example, for an initial frequency of 7.9 x 10^14 Hz, the red shift is at the resulting frequency of 7.89 x 10^14 Hz/cm:

And, by isolating the variable f’ we obtain:

f’ = (cm) * 7.89 x 10^14 Hz/cm = 7.89 x 10^14 Hz

Given that wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency -i.e. the higher the frequencies, the lower the wavelengths and vice versa, for systems emitting IR quantum/waves of a frequency equal to 2.998 x 10^13 Hz and a wavelength λ = 1.0 x 10^4 nm, we obtain a wavelength displacement Δλ (redshift) of:

Δλ = 8.396 x 10^(-13) x 0.001 cm = 8.396 x 10^(-9) nm.

And the resulting wavelength λ is 0.000999 cm.

Therefore, the energy density of a quantum/wave decreases as its wavelength is lengthened. The longer the wavelength is, the lower the energy density is.

The inverse proportionality between Δλ and Δf is evidenced by Graph 3.

As Δf decreases, Δλ increases. As Δf increases and Δλ decreases, the energy density of the IR quantum/wave increases.

Conclusion

The correlation between the frequency of IR quantum/waves radiated from the surface being affected by the Earth’s gravity and the energy density of those IR quantum/waves demonstrates that gravity exerts an important effect on the warming of the troposphere.

The results indicate that the energy density of the IR quantum/waves near the surface increases as the frequency of the quantum/waves increases. Due to the effect of the gravity on the frequency of quantum/waves, the wavelength is also inversely affected with respect to the frequency fraction generating a shift towards the red spectrum, which means a decrease of the energy density of the quantum/waves.

This is the most plausible explanation to the adiabatic effect observed in the Earth’s atmosphere and evidence against any influence of the carbon dioxide on the Earth’s temperature.

The low total emissivity of the carbon dioxide (0.002), the induced negative absorption that determines the directionality of emissions from the carbon dioxide towards the outer space, the radiation pressure that always is higher in emissions from the surface than in emissions from the atmosphere, and the effect of gravity on the frequency and wavelength of the IR quantum/wave radiation, are clear evidence that the “greenhouse effect” caused by “greenhouse gases” is not real, and that the warming of the Earth obeys to the load and characteristics of the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun.

Questions

After evaluating the effect of gravity on photons, three basic questions arise:

  1. Is the gravity field a sink to heat?
  2. Does gravity field donate energy to photons?
  3. Do photons donate energy to the gravity field?

In cosmology and astrophysics, the three questions have a single positive answer. This is because, in modern cosmological theories, all the arguments concerning to the energy are handled as fields; for example, Higgs’ fields, Electromagnetic field and gravity field. This way, a cosmologist does not have any problem on attributing to the gravitons the capacity of absorbing and emitting energy that no longer can be used as work. Universe’s energy-in-transit ends by being absorbed by the gravity field.

Nasif S. Nahle is Director of the Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico.

References

  1. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html
  2. Zee, A. Einstein’s Universe; Gravity at Work and Play. 1989. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
  3. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
  4.  http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0504/0504116.pdf
  5. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/analysis/uvvisible/radiation.html
  6. Serway, Raymond A., Moses, Clement J., Moyer, Curt A. Modern Physics-3rd Edition. Brooks Cole. 2005.

Read more from Nasif by scrolling here:  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/nasif-s-nahle/

, ,

33 Responses to Effects of Gravity on the IR Quantum/Waves Frequency: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

  1. mkelly March 4, 2011 at 1:40 am #

    Interesting.

    Would the following also be true along the same lines?

    E=mc^2
    E=hv

    mc^2=hv
    m= hv/c^2

    In a system in which the volume does not change it is necessary to have a mass in = mass out equality. If the above is valid does the mass of the incoming solar radiation = the out going IR radiation?

    It appears not.

  2. gavin March 4, 2011 at 5:52 am #

    Nahle: Gee!

  3. gavin March 4, 2011 at 6:09 am #

    on transition basics v theory; let’s not step into space

    “Variation of universal constants

    Spectral lines arise from transition between energy levels which obey quantum mechanical rules. The energies themselves depend on the physical constants of nature such as speed of light, planck’s constant, Newton’s graviation constant, mass of electron etc. However, there are other kinds of theories trying to describe quantum gravity etc. which retain the basic principles of quantum mechanics, but allow the physical constants to vary in space and time. Lyman alpha systems as well as hyperfine levels of hydrogen can be used to constrain the spatial and temporal variation of these constants”

    http://www.astro.cornell.edu/share/sharvari/websiteV7/askanastro.htm

  4. Nasif Nahle March 4, 2011 at 7:29 am #

    @ mkelly and Gavin…

    Thanks for your observations and link to the article.

    MKelly, yes, those are part of the procedure to relate effective inertial mass with effective gravitational mass.

    Regarding your second observation, there is a balance, of course. However, we stumble upon the horizon at the top of the gravity field and we obtain an imbalance which perhaps is related with your observation. In order to solve the imbalance we resort to the cosmological concept of gravity field as a sink of energy-in-transit and the balance appears again.

    Thanks for your comment.

    Gavin…

    When I was a student of modern physics, I got curious about the mass of the Universe and the gravity it could exert at, in those times, its known boundaries. I did my calculations and got surprised when my teacher asked me to calculate the loss of energy by the lengthening of a quantum/wave emitted by the Sun towards the boundaries of our Universe. Of course, dismissing the probability that such quantum/wave striked against matter and other cosmic systems.

    I did it, and found, at least to myself, that the limits of our universe were not the same limits we were observing. About my student mind, I thought about other universes that were affecting us and to which we were also affecting. This idea made me resign, temporarily, to continue “investigating” on this issue, until 10 years ago, when I retook the issue.

    This paper is closely related to the interaction between quantum/waves and gravity field; nevertheless it does not limits to this solitary interaction. I explored, a little because of the own space limits of the article, the system towards which the energy that is no more available to do work on other systems goes and from where the energy capable to do work comes from.

    I think I will expand on this issue in future assessments.

    Thanks a lot for your observation.

    :|

  5. cohenite March 4, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    Nasif, you may be interested in this:

    http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    Pressure and gravity seem to be the overlooked elephants in the AGW room.

    The issues were canvassed comprehensively here:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-3957

    I had this exchange with William, the author of my first link:

    “cohenite
    William, on the layman scale I think I am below you and Leonard. Dealing with Arthur is always informative; for instance his linked article is to work done by one of the Verlinde brothers; if gravity is ‘nothing’ more than quintissential entropy with a black hole being pure entropy then light speed is the highest form of order [assuming there is no FLS which would seem to be contradicted by superposition]: how to marry that to Leonard’s room? Arthur says this at July 12, 3.04pm:

    “Remember the ideal gas law is pV = nRT – there’s an important ‘n’ factor there. Keep all else the same (V and T) and raising ‘n’ increases ‘p’. That’s all that’s at issue as you add gas molecules – no effect on T.”

    But that’s not true; if you are adding more gas molecules you are adding more entropy/gravity. Arthur also said this at July 12, 12.57am:

    ” Gravity pulls the gas molecules down; the pressure of the molecules below (exhibited as collisions more from below than above) push the gas molecules back up again. Under hydrostatic equilibrium that’s all balanced – any gain in vertical velocity and thus kinetic energy from falling molecules under gravity is offset by a loss in vertical velocity from those collisions, and things balance. ”

    This assumes an equality between the upward collisional force, which is anti-entropic, and the downward gravitational force which is entropic. But this is not true; gravity is quicker/stronger than light [ie a blackhole] so it must be that gravity will be stronger and there will be no balance. This would explain LTE layering and the temp profile; the equilibriums between different layers is a product of the entropy/non-entropy mix which is in inverse relationship with temp; ie higher entropy/lower temp; at every level there is not an energy equilibrium but an equilibrium ratio between entropy and non-entropy relative to that height. This is a vertical equilibrium

    Zeroth’s law would apply to areas of equal entropy or gas volume. All things being equal that would be a horizontal equilibrium.”

    “cohenite
    William, I found your comment on LTE and Miskolczi at June 30, 1.52am; you say this:

    “The atmospheric temperature at any height is a function of the local pressure, or vertical mass (PV = nRT), and the total energy contained in the parcel via the net electromagnetic flux resulting from solar absorption/surface heating and emission to space. Radiation does not play a role in the atmospheric thermodynamics since each layer is in local thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings and there is no net radiation heat transfer between layers or between the surface/atmospheric boundary. This was covered nicely by Leonard and is empirically supported by the work of Miskolzci (especially in his newest paper which is about to be published in E&E).”

    That would mean, therefore, that all backradiation is coming from the immediate air layer to the surface?”

    “williamcg
    Cohenite,

    That would mean, therefore, that all backradiation is coming from the immediate air layer to the surface?

    Yes. And that would also be true for any atmospheric layer that you observe. There is a slight differential in temperature involved, but that would only cause what I called “mini PV work events” in a later post. Radiation heat transfer has no major impact on the atmospheric thermodynamic profiles. Convection (PV work and mass transfer) and latent heat release are the primary drivers.”

  6. kuhnkat March 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Cohenite and Nasif,

    I believe I have seen this calculated for Venus and Mars and it appeared to be consistent, but, how about Jupiter and Saturn. Do their profiles match? If not, what would cause the difference?

    mkelly,

    the photons gain energy as they get closer to the gravity generator and lose it as they move away. What is the issue?? It has been shown that gravity, and electromagnetic radiation can warp light paths. If gravity cannot slow the photon something else must be happening. This would appear to be a reasonable explanation.

  7. cohenite March 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    kuhnkat: this may be of interest:

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf

  8. Larry Fields March 4, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Nasif wrote:
    “Remember that, although the units to express mass are the same units that we use for weight…”

    Not true.
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters^2/second^2

  9. cohenite March 4, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    Larry, do you want to expand your point? I am trying to see if the distinction impacts on Nasif’s conclusions; Nasif does distinguish weight and mass; mass is obviously different because a given mass does not change from one gravity condition to another but the weight obviously does; this tends to lend ‘weight’ to the gravity/pressure explanation for the lapse rate on the various planets rather than a greenhouse effect.

    Looked at this way, mass, while normally described as an extensive property, is, in terms of the gravitational condition, unchanging or intensive, while weight is entirely dependent on the gravitational condition and therefore is the extensive quality of mass.

  10. Larry Fields March 4, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Comment from: cohenite March 4th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    “Larry, do you want to expand your point?”

    My point? I’m not a Postmodernist. I do not believe that all ideas are created equal. I am not inclined to feign agreement with statements that I don’t believe, for the sake of ‘fitting in’, and being accepted as a ‘team player’.

    Some ideas are essentially correct. Others are partially correct. Others are essentially incorrect. Still others are meaningless gibberish. Some less-than-correct statements raise red flags in my mind.

    That particular statement by Nasif is inaccurate. And no, I’m not making a nigysob out of a typo. We’re talking Physics 101 here. Is this mistake central to the conclusions of the article? I don’t know. I’d have to reread the article in order to make that determination, and I am not the least bit motivated to do that. In this instance, the lack of attention to detail does not inspire confidence in the soundness of the rest of the article, does it?

  11. cohenite March 4, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Well thanks anyway; at least I’ve learnt what a nigysob is, a term I had not come across before, which puts my ex-wife into better perspective.

  12. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 3:29 am #

    @Cohenite…

    Thank you so much for the links to the article and your comment.

    Indeed, the article by Hans and William correlates with this issue.

  13. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 3:33 am #

    @kuhnkat…

    Thanks for you comment.

    On the case of Jupiter and Saturn, we must consider also the flow of plasma they do emit. However, we find that the IR quantum/waves emitted by the Sun regains energy as they reach the overlapping region between planetary gravity field and Sun’s gravity field.

    I’ll try to do calculations for Jupiter and Saturn. Thanks for the suggestion.

  14. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    @Larry Fields…

    You say:

    “Not true.
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters^2/second^2″

    It’s true… We express mass of a star in kilograms and its weight also in kilograms. See an example from NASA:

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html

    Regarding the units, that’s precisely the correlation between mass and energy (kilogram*meters^2/second^2 = Joule).

    Additionally, if you’re asked what your weight is you won’t say “my force it’s 100 Newton” (kilogram*meters/second^2 = Newton), but “my weight is 100 kg).

    :)

  15. kuhnkat March 5, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Nasif,

    thank you. You mention exactly what I was wondering about. Jupiter and others emit more energy than their insolation. Should be interesting.

    Cohenite,

    thank you for that link!!

  16. Mack March 5, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    Nasif,
    Although I won’t pretend to understand the equations,you’ve made the general picture of the physics pretty clear to me. Keep up the good work.
    Larry,
    Common misunderstanding between weight and mass.
    Mass is mass……Weight is a force.(which varies whereever you take the object)
    Strickly speaking we should say a bloke weights “X kg force” but we’re lazy and been around on this earth too long so it’s just “X kg” ;) :)

  17. Larry Fields March 5, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    Comment from: Nasif Nahle March 5th, 2011 at 3:41 am
    “Regarding the units, that’s precisely the correlation between mass and energy (kilogram*meters^2/second^2 = Joule).”

    I had originally said:
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters^2/second^2

    It appears that I’ve won the Conehead Award for today. I should have said:
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilograms.

    What was I thinking? Anyway, that’s what sleep deprivation can do to a person.

    That said, I stand by my original conclusions. Weight and mass do have different units. In dual-system countries, like the US and the UK, the distinction between mass and force is easier to fathom, because our pounds are units of force, which are readily convertible to Newtons. I can say that I weigh 200 pounds, for example. However i cannot express my body mass in units of pounds.

    If I take my next vacation at Hotel Luna, my mass in kilograms will remain essentially constant (allowing for the notorious mal gusto of spacecraft food). But my weight–in pounds–will be much less than on Earth.

    Non-scientists in the Eurasian countries and in other benighted Metric System nations do not make that distinction. For them, a kilogram is both a unit of mass and a unit of weight. In a scientific context, that dual usage is incorrect.

  18. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    @Larry Fields…

    You say:

    I had originally said:
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters^2/second

    Nobody is saying otherwise.

    You say:

    What was I thinking? Anyway, that’s what sleep deprivation can do to a person.

    Are you insomniac or what? Anyway, it’s not a matter that concerns to my article; additionaly, I don’t care.

    You say:

    If I take my next vacation at Hotel Luna, my mass in kilograms will remain essentially constant (allowing for the notorious mal gusto of spacecraft food). But my weight–in pounds–will be much less than on Earth.

    Although I didn’t put you on the [Hotel] Moon in my example, but a rock, that’s exactly what I said:

    “Weight is the attraction force exerted on a body by effect of gravity. For example, a rock on the Earth’s surface is attracted by means of the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on the rock and it depends on the Earth’s mass and the mass of the rock. Such force is what we know as weight. If we take the same rock and place it on the surface of the Moon, the mass of the rock does not change, but its weight decreases because the gravitational force on the Moon exerted on the matter placed on its surface is lower than that on Earth.”

    Thanks for your support!

    You say:

    Non-scientists in the Eurasian countries and in other benighted Metric System nations do not make that distinction. For them, a kilogram is both a unit of mass and a unit of weight. In a scientific context, that dual usage is incorrect.

    Well… Say that to NASA and many, many other authors from USA and UK. I clearly made the distinction:

    “…although the units to express mass are the same units that we use for weight, mass is not weight or vice-versa.”

    And we end in the same place where we started…

    (Kilogram (meters^2))/second^2 = Joule = Energy = mass.

    (Kilogram (meters))/second^2 = Newton = Force

    Gravitational Force over matter = Weight.

    Thanks Larry for your comments!

    :)

  19. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    @Mack…

    Thank you for your comments! I really appreciate it; I will try to keep my work on the track.

    :)

  20. Nasif Nahle March 5, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    @kuhnkat…

    Jupiter and others emit more energy than their insolation. Should be interesting.

    Indeed, and hard work also. I wonder if the thermospheres on those planets have an effect on solar IR quantum/waves equivalent to the Earth’s thermosphere has on the solar IR quantum/waves. Definitely, there is too much work to do ahead.

    :)

  21. gavin March 5, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Nasif; I’m only a practical guy but I say gravity dose not apply in the field of global warming and CO2.

    All this astro physics is only a distraction and the clever math should go elsewhere as us earthly beings beings should not be too bothered by what goes on outside our little circle in the solar system. After all it’s Gaia who shapes us, not the mighty universe.

    Back in the 1950/60’s I got quite interested in cosmology, particle physics, optics and a few other technologies like the practice associated with using say a 6J7. Last night we had dinner with a Texan who emigrated and ran a few school science programs downunder. While he played guitar through home made valve amps I reminised about finding those old earth loops and the main source of hum. It’s worth remembering that tone back then could involve serious device overload and designed distortion but I preferred to play with heavy magnets and audio feedback control in the supporting speaker chamber. Room dynamics were even more interesting.

    Human perception however and all the possible variations in individual appreciation are the key to designing a new science project that involves our environment. On introducing a new class of two way radios, one must take into account the user’s needs as well as the radio’s. I won’t go into what I think happens when some individuals work their RF gear too close to their organs but it’s a safe bet they won’t see it straight away. I’m sure Gaia on the other hand will evolve something over time.

    When it’s watts we are after, somebody finds an instrument and the next move should be a range setting. When it’s really important I get a new AA battery and make sure the test circuit and test leads are not open, also my 1.5 v reading is where I expect it to be. No cosmology needed.

    Thanks for your consideration

  22. Nasif Nahle March 6, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    @Gavin…

    Thank you so much for your commentaries.

    To have a congruent personal viewpoint about the human knowledge applied in particular to any portion of the Cosmos -or to the Cosmos as a whole- is something highly desirable virtue of all human beings.

    Science would not have any advance neither it had evolved if those digressions among us would have not happened. Hence the theory of truth utterly rejects dogmatism, phenomenology and consensuses every time they corrupt the scientific descriptions on the real world.

    Far from assuming a radical position in defense of my arguments about any of my theories and hypotheses, I assume a position of openness to be taught. Hence, usually, I do not respond to insults (they are given back automatically to the goniff as soon as I demonstrate that my arguments are true). I am not referring by any means to your message, which is highly civilized, but to the way as generally I use to react.

    Regarding your observation, indeed, as you observed, the article was not written to be applied on the field of global warming by CO2, but, specifically, to the real cause of the misnamed “greenhouse effect”, whether it is placed under a global warming period or under “standard” conditions. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is attributed to CO2 thermal characteristics, although extremely distorted by the proponents of the idea of the Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    The calculations into this article, which were made by considering real process functions and real physical state functions, is evidence against the attributions given to the atmospheric gases to maintain the Earth in a quasi-stable state –because the Earth is not in a stable state neither in a meta-stable state- on referring to specific intensive properties. To say it briefly, the Earth is not warm by means of hyper-powerful gases, but by the same laws of thermodynamics which occur also at the quantum level.

    In the last paragraph of conclusions, I summarized other causes that make impossible the atmospheric gases cause the “greenhouse effect” on Earth.

    :)

  23. Derek Smith March 6, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Firstly, thank’s Larry for for correcting your SI unit for mass AFTER I had to wipe my coffee off of the computer screen.
    Secondly, can anybody explain to me how you can hold T constant in a real system if you increase both n and P?
    Thirdly, I have to agree with Gavin here, this layman can’t see how gravity (the weakest of the forces by a country mile BTW) can have a measurable effect on IR and therefore climate.
    And fourthly, (re. another post) with a TSI of around 1000 watts/m^2, how can we possibly get back radiation of up to 300 watts/m^2 as is claimed elsewhere?

    BTW, I’m currently doing an electronics PD series that includes constructing a cheap TSI meter. I’ll post alink to the website with construction details later.
    Cheers.

  24. Nasif Nahle March 6, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    @Derek Smith…

    Thanks for your comment.

    You say:

    Thirdly, I have to agree with Gavin here, this layman can’t see how gravity (the weakest of the forces by a country mile BTW) can have a measurable effect on IR and therefore climate.
    And fourthly, (re. another post) with a TSI of around 1000 watts/m^2, how can we possibly get back radiation of up to 300 watts/m^2 as is claimed elsewhere?

    You and Gavin, kuhnkat, etc., make very smart questions as to be considered “laymen”. :)

    1st. question:

    Although it is a matter for future articles, the effect of gravity on IR quantum/waves is measurable and was meassured by Robert Pound and Glen Rebka in 1959. Latter experiments through the last two decades have confirmed the experiment performed by Pond and Rebka, although with more sophisticated devices.

    The profile of temperature of the Earth’s troposphere coincides exactly with the curve from the fractional frequency of IR quantum/waves emitted from the Earth’s surface.

    Additionaly, gravity acceleration is included to calculate the Grashof Number which is introduced in algorithms applied to know the load of power transferred from a warmer surface to a cooler one:

    Gr L = g β (Ts – T ∞) D^3 / v^2

    g is gravity acceleration, 9.8 m/s^2.

    Gravity field is considered to be a donor and acceptor of energy.

    2nd. question:

    Some people’s claims on “backradiation” are not true. The maximum “backradiation” measured by a series of TSI placed in a square meter on the ground has been 34 W/m^2 during the NH summer, at midday; at night, the measurements are ridiculously low. In addition, there is a technical problem over there that I cannot reveal at this moment. Sooooorry! X)

    On the other hand, to have a “backradiation” doesn’t mean that it warms up a warmer system.

    :)

  25. A C Osborn March 7, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    Does the Gravity effect you are discussing also change the frequency of the “back” or downward radiation?
    Does it increase it by the same amount that it is decreased when going up?

  26. gavin March 7, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    I could spend all day responding to this latest post from Nasif but I won’t as I’m constantly distracted by other ideas like how to get the tow bar off the latest Corolla cause one of us will likely bark our shins on it some time today. The issues are; do I soak the bolts in CRC while I write or give each of them a smack on the noodle with my largest ball peen hammer to shock their crystals into submission before I find a longer wrench? All that holds up another project, restoring a cute little bench vice made in England that I found on a dealer’s stall early yesterday morning.

    All this chat about mass v weight, SI units etc seems irrelevant to say the least . I a private moment I recall forming some concepts around what happens in a ball or rod mill as we pulverise rocks in preparation for a crude semi chemical mineral separation. At another time its about forming a tank circuit at the appropriate RF frequencies with a boot lid as a substitute for an antenna in covert two way communications. In that ore milling process we worry about the soft rubber linings that extend operations. Spectrum users worry about band with and direction. For some engineers gravity is not a big thing. On the other hand energy transfer mechanisms in various mediums is a broad subject.

    However it was David Attenborough’s First Life series on our ABC that prompts me to say we are postulating from experience in a very thin slice of our evolution on Planet Earth. Also it’s been clear to me for a while that Gaia can change the atmosphere and us in response to impacts beyond our joint control.

  27. Nasif Nahle March 7, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    @A C Osborn…

    Thanks for your very relevant questions.

    You say:

    Does the Gravity effect you are discussing also change the frequency of the “back” or downward radiation?

    Yes, they are affected also, but the quantum/waves also change in the very moment they are emitted by the absorbent substance, air molecules in this case.

    The wavelength of the quantum/waves emitted by the molecules of air elongates and becomes useless to be absorbed and to “heat up” other molecules, including those of carbon dioxide.

    This is why the Earth’s energy budgets and the idea of the “backradiation” emitted by the atmosphere heating up a warmer system is a violation to the second law of thermodynamics.

    You ask:

    Does it increase it by the same amount that it is decreased when going up?

    No, it doesn’t because a the quantum/wave emitted from the air has a lower frequency and a longer wavelength than the quantum/wave emitted from the surface. For example:

    A quantum/wave emitted by the surface with a wavelength of 14 micrometer has an energy density of 1.4187e-20 J and a frequency of 2.1414e+13 Hz.

    A molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs 2.8373e-23 J from the energy carried by the quantum/wave that hit on it, and 1.4171e-20 J are dispersed towards other available microstates in other systems.

    The molecule of carbon dioxide does emit a quantum/wave with a wavelength of 14.02 micrometer and a frequency of 2.1383e+13 Hz, which is by 3.1e+10 Hz lower than the original frequency of the quantum/wave. By the way, it can be emitted, with identical probabilities, towards any direction.

    Therefore, the frequency of the emitted quantum/wave cannot be regained up to the original frequency by effects of gravity because it is lower than the frequency of the original quantum/wave.

    It is where the second law of thermodynamics appears, i.e. it is impossible for a system with a low energy density to do work on a system with a higher energy density, and the explanation of the second law gets obvious.

    Here the importance of this assessments, which clearly refutes the idea of a cooler atmosphere heating up a warmer surface.

    :)

  28. Nasif Nahle March 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    @Gavin…

    Thanks a lot for your comments.

    You say:

    All this chat about mass v weight, SI units etc seems irrelevant to say the least.

    I agree. However, it was not me who was confused and confusing the thread, but Larry, who finally accepted it:

    It appears that I’ve won the Conehead Award for today. I should have said:
    Using SI units, weight is expressed in terms of kilogram*meters/second^2
    Using SI units, mass is expressed in terms of kilograms.

    You say:

    we are postulating from experience in a very thin slice of our evolution on Planet Earth. Also it’s been clear to me for a while that Gaia can change the atmosphere and us in response to impacts beyond our joint control.

    I would have added:

    With humans or without them. She has done it many times in the past and she will do it in the future. In response to impacts, or just because she is evolving continuously.

    I also would have added:

    And not only “Gaia” can do it, but the whole Universe, with or without humans.

    :)

  29. A C Osborn March 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Nasif, thank you very much for the explanation.
    Your research is fascinating to a layman like myself.

  30. kuhnkat March 8, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    Gavin,

    “Nasif; I’m only a practical guy but I say gravity dose not apply in the field of global warming and CO2.”

    Exactly what would keep the pressure up if there was no gravity? With no gravity to create pressure, the atmosphere would disperse rather quickly. Even if you had some other kind of barrier or field to retain the atmosphere you would lose convection with no gravity!

    Are you trying to say that gravity has nothing to do with radiative physics?? I think Nasif is showing that is does.

  31. Alan D McIntire March 9, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Escape velocity at earth’s surface is about 11.3 kilometers per second, the velocity of light
    is 300,000 kilometers per second, traveling through earth;s gravitational field should
    increase the outgoing wavelength by factor of about

    1/2 (11.2/300,000)^2, or by about 1.0000000007

  32. kuhnkat March 9, 2011 at 4:09 am #

    Alan D McIntire,

    now multiply that by the number of photons leaving the eath’s gravitational field.

    8>)

    Yeah, I know that would give a meaningless result. Just trying to get across that the effect on a single photon does not give a reasonable idea of the total effect over a 24 hour period of all radiation leaving the earth.

  33. Nasif Nahle March 9, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    @Alan D McIntire and Kuhnkat…

    Thanks for your comments.

    Your observations are also evidence on the the second law of thermodynamics acting on quantum levels.

    I will try to explain how it works in my following article.

    Thanks! :)

Website by 46digital