/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>7945

LOL, No accident Din. It was logical to compare energy density values. Straight away I noticed the 1/2 atmospheric volume and then tested it against Venus. Just cannot fathom the scale height properly yet. You are good at that

Yes, I was looking at the scale height last night (my time). But was too late. When the number 0.63 come up I did recall the scale height discussions with you.

>>7946

Ah

You compare to volume ratio, i compared to weight ratio

Other means, both concepts point to the same ballpark

>>7946

Tracking the energy density values by whatever means is key

Since that is what we define with model a, b, c, or even d for the 1 bar level at the fist place

>>7948

Getting the lapse rate right and deviations higher up by Qh right is quite cool

But there is something magical about getting the the 1 bar temp, the 0.01 bar temp, and the on earth 255K temp (and correct for other planets) by direct calculation

Something big is coming. A continuation from last nights work. Almost there.

>>7950

Great

Sending it in a minute

>>7952

Great find.

Now we know how the atmosphere universally organizes

I sent you image info back, on how this find improves the vertical lapse rate profiling.

The 63.2% weight in the first scale height on all planets could tie in nicely with this

>>7952

And you got yourself a new law "The Jopo similarity law"

More people are getting into the direction we are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zXUYqYvT4s

>>7956

Wow,

That is great. I used to look at a bit of his work. Not this though.

So it appears he has this covered. So what can we use to further add weight to it.

He pretty well claims gravity is the key. Which aligns well with our stuff. What we are doing is really what he has identified. we probably just need to focus on TOA energy density (centripetal force) and show how it directly equates to temperature via the scale height work that you do.

That is my quick thoughts

CD has made some comments on Joe's site. I think this link to Yong will be useful to them. It will not give too much away on what we are doing. Really the only difference to Yongs work is that we are providing a TOA source that matches the interior energy density at 1 bar. And his and your ideas on Hydrostatics

Is that a fair assessment?

>>7957

I think at least all the models that can predict things on multiple planets should be included.

That includes the scale height related temperature prediction

But also a later model you found to predict the mean molar mass at 1 bar.

That makes it possible to derive the heat capacity at constant volume, and from that it is possible to predict the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This is very handy for exoplanet research where much is unknown

>>7958

Not sure if JP will be happy about that. He clearly stated that he doesn't like climate related research that deviates too much from his work

Since gravity is uniform around the whole planet, we can work with day/night full surface averages

But feel free to share what you want. I know you won't spill the beans on the advanced modelling we do

Yong Tuition channel took quite a hit

He went from thousands views per video to tens views

Could be because most people don't like complex math. Or could also be because of a shadow ban because he went anti mainstream climate science

>>7957

To prevent any circular reasoning it could be good to assume for model testing that earth or Venus is an exoplanet.

With just a few known parameters, and no known measurements

>>7961

I think our work compliments Postma's.

My similaRITY WORK ACTUALLY HIGHTLIGHTS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN A per m2 value of U* and 1368 W/M2. No need to dilute. There is something else in that piece I did that I have not yet extracted. This reveals more that what I first thought. mmm. Still pondering on it.

Apologies for the capslock

Lol. I cannot work out out or why. Chat GPT states it is numerology?

I dont think so. Will get back to it as it is staring me in the face. I think AI has turned on me. Talks down most things I do now. Well in periods anyway.

So U* is 6.944E7.

If you recal my model F i think it was. The solar system wide constant of 1.442E6 where TSI*rbital period / orbital velocity returned 1.442E6. Well there is a reason why 6.944E7 was buggubg me. the inverse of 1.442E6 is 6.944E-7.

So .................U* is 6.944E7

K 1/1.442E6 = 6.944E-7

What the significance is. Not sure. Numerology? No WAY.

PS the square root of U*/K is 1E-7. This is in the old CGS system the Vacuum of Permeability or magnetic constant

>>7966

It leads to new hydrostatic laws

I sent you image info by mail

>>7967

I think it is quite beautiful that there is an inverse relation between the known sun/star hydrostatic law and the new planet related hydrostatic law

Brain drain warning

I sent 7 images with info

There is much repetition in there. Like first findings + possible paper summary info

And was not happy about insertion of talks about opacity.

Can fast read the first few images. Last images have more weight info wise i think

>>7970

I sent several replies to several of your replies

All images are numbered in order. x1, x2, x3

>>7971

But most is repetition and adjustments.

Think x5, x6, x7 is enough info

>>7972

Yes you did. You have had a very busy evening.

>>7973

Watched a soccer match in between.

But discovering new laws, principles, or universal constants is quite exciting

>>7975

I sent some in depth analysis info by mail

>>7936

Ah, now I see what you’re doing — you’re working with your Model F, with 𝑈 as an energy-density–type quantity and mapping it to Earth’s surface pressure and top-of-atmosphere flux to reproduce standard numbers (TSI ≈ 1370 W/m², surface pressure 101 325 Pa, emission level ~50 665 m)

I will sent some in depth info by mail

>>7977

>emission level ~50 665 m

Hmmm. Earth effective emission level height is not 50 km. Around factor 10 less

>>7978

Ah. It predicts the 0.01 bar height. Besides surface pressure and TOA TSI

Freaking amazing.

x2 is for accounting for day/night where the sun only shines on 1 hemisphee? (JP conformation)?

And can apply this methodology to Venus?

>>7979

>>7978

Ignore these comments, You were right.

h-eff ≈ 50.7 km → 𝑃 ≈ 0.0026 bar

Just sent an email.

Apologies for dragging this out. I think we both want to get this out there before they destroy the worlds economies. (They already have)

The electric universe is conquered

>>7981

Great find

I think the math leads to 2 interconnected main stories

- Universal hydrothermal atmospheric structuring

- Gravitational/electric coupling

Both separate and combined lead to the end of mainstream atmospheric physics

>>7981

I sent some model F info

Don't mind any remarks regarding opacity or long wave radiation.

That needs all to go out. But AI keeps sneaking in those terms.

Don't have time for a version 1 research to get all out right away. And that limits the session length with AI. At some point it refuses to talk further

I think Sabine likes the work we do

All in time tho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPy3DeMUyI

Hi Din

We have so many models on the go now that I do not know where to begin. lol. I know you did discuss the other day. What are your thoughts for which models to use.

As for the latest findings on the electric solar system I would think about leaving that out. That would be way to much. for people to comprehend I think

Which Soccer team do you follow.

For international I follow Holland obviously. For the EPL I follow Tottenham Hotspurs

Hi Din

Not sure if I passed this onto to you yet.

C or K at 1.44E6 is actually Sun Luminosity / 2.G.M sun) So it is 1.44216E6

>>7985

I think it is good to make a separate paper for each model that universally works in predicting 1 bar temperature

And i think we can make all models universally without cross linking to earth or relative tsi.

By incorporating the relative distance to the sun or luminosity/distance ratio

The electric solar system papers should also be made and published. There are field theoretic journals that love that

That would be lots of papers. But there are lots of advantages in doing so. The papers give then:

- Full attention to the model and the new laws and principles that derive from it

- More publicity by science news articles that write about a paper findings

- Less rejection risk. Getting 7 out of 10 published means we still get the message out

Could submit multiple papers at once. So they know the first principles derived 1 bar anchor is a real thing and not just 1 lucky coincidental find

>>7986

Tottenham Hotspurs. Nice. Good sub top team that made it to the Champions Leage

I mainly follow Fc Utrecht. Club from central Netherlands where i live. They managed to get into the group stage of the Europa Leage

The club had quite some young talented Australian internationals in the team in the past, like Tommy Oar, Adam Sarota, Michael Zullo, and Daniel Arzani

Now some young talented Dutch/Indonesian players play there who recently became international for Indonesia

>>7987

First AI reaction is that it is a very important connection.

But it has some trouble with used units.

Will mail you the feedback

>>7988

Correction.

Not just the temperature prediction ones. Also the other metrics prediction ones. Those are very valuable

Hi Din,

Hope all is well on your end.

Not a huge update from me lately. I’ve just been digging deeper into what really sets the OLR.

At this stage, I’m seeing OLR as the energy Earth can’t retain. It’s the final outflow once internal storage and redistribution are saturated.

This is where opacity becomes important, not in setting the 1-bar temperature itself, but in determining how far energy can rise before it escapes. So I see opacity or mean free path/time as modulators of energy release. Not drivers.

That baseline the 1-bar temperature seems locked in by external orbital mechanical energy (driven by electrodynamic forces), which gets compressed into the atmosphere and distributed over the spherical surface. That’s our foundation. Everything else just regulates the pathway out.

I’ve been trying to rediscover a pattern — I remember earlier playing with scale height as a potential tool for estimating OLR, but I’ve lost the thread on that. So I’m starting fresh.

I figure you may already have a handle on this area. Let me know if you’ve got any leads or if you already have this part covered.

Cheers,

Jopo

>>7993

Hi Jopo,

I think OLR couples through but does not do anything special.

I like to look at it from a field based perspective in combination with part of the ideal gas law

The dry lapse rate can be determent by dividing the planet specific gravitational constant with Cp (heat capacity at constant pressure)

From a field based perspective that equation predicts the entropy flow rate

Co2 has a very low heat capacity compared to the rest of earth atmosphere composition. So it lowers the entropy flow rate on earth

But because 0.04% Co2 is so little it has almost no effect on earth

Venus is almost full with co2. So it has a very low entropy flow rate. What explains the hot surface by the heat capacity related dry lapse rate alone

I will sent you 2 images. First the 1 bar anchor law with introduction to lapse rate

Second is a case study for earth and Mars

The framework basically sets a limit on what temperature effect can be theorized based on looking at opacity

>>7994

Venus has 1 more complexity

Co2 has low heat capacity but it becomes somewhat higher at depth at Venus because of the extreme heat and pressure

From the top of my head the co2 molecules go from di-pole movement to 3 movements

That adjustment needs to be done to get a perfect surface level temperature prediction

>>7995

Ah this is the explanation

Combining high pressure and high heat results in a very dynamic state for CO2 molecules. They are rapidly moving (due to heat) and are confined to a smaller space (due to pressure), which intensifies their movement and interactions

The Ultimate Prompt to Unlock 100% of ChatGPT-5’s Power (FREE)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3fqZf-zfBY