/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>7690

Din here.

Never fill in the name and e-mail field. All can see if you do that

Just type text and select/drop/paste files for image or pdf sharing

Hi Din. I read your version 1. We have very similar thoughts. My paper on Electrodynamics mirror much of this work you did.

Clearly this latest work actually compliments the previous work.

So have you been involved in discussions regarding your work that has met some push back. I would like to peruse if OK.

For me I constantly get the D/A is wrong, NASA data temperature is wrong, The 100 Bridge scalar is curv fit. Very frustrating

The dimensional analysis.

I know it is wrong though. And that is the point of it . 3 different models that all converge on the same answer. It seems to be an orchestrated move by people to make this complicated.

Jopo

>>7692

Put something like this in your text before submitting to AI

--

Some AI say the math needs to be empirically derived, but this sets a new higher empirical standard

The combined forces don't need to be dimensionally correct because they set the field strength, the forces don't directly act upon each other, at least not necessarily

This appears wrong to me?

Be good if we could talk. I know my country heritage speak very good English

>>7696

My speaking English is rusty lol. And need to let things sink in before responding. And even then i can say retarded things lol. What is ok, as long as there is improving self reflection

A is good

B - The planet with the higher Gravity is the numerator

C and D - if using Venus = G^1/4* 2601 / 1361 = 0.0191. If multiply by 100 it is 1.91. Which is Then if (1.91^.25 = 1.176. I a little confused with this.

I set altitude (h) as 1 meter

>>7697

Will double check with other AI. I have the math build up behind it

Ok it is 11:50PM. I must go now.

Talk tomorrow Din

Cheers

>>7701

Ok man. Cheers

>>7704

That feature works lol.

>>7703

I have separate math on how to tune the changing scaler exponential k for different planets and different heights

>>7707

Note that the heat capacity for earth is 37 and for Venus 50. If i recall right

Extreme pressure changes the heat capacity of co2, compared to earth values

>>7707

1 conclusion in the manuscript is wrong

Venus has a high heat capacity.

The extreme heat at the bottom is from field strength component in k, increasing with depth

>>7697

I see that the math makes a short cut by just using gravity planet related to gravity earth. It uses the proportional difference

Will try to rearrange it so can just build up with only observed planet metrics

I started with end conclusion and from there working back a bit.

But i think it is good to review the other manuscripts starting at the beginning to see how it is build up. Just didn't do that right away to avoid brain drain

>>7709

>field strength component in k, increasing with depth

Is baked into the relation with scalar (a)

>>7712

If i recall right. Scalar (a) value becomes extreme high at Venus surface level, 8000 or so

Implicating very strong field forcing

>>7714

The very high scalar value at Venus surface explains why it is so hot there. Since it can't be explained by the weight of the atmosphere alone

That is why my modeling above went so good in getting end results. I related the scalar equations to the ratio pressure divided by density. Another temperature deriving way

And from there can adjust the heat capacity to get more right across more planets

Think i can make that bridge also with the new derived equations

Hope this doesn't deviate too much from your original intentions

Cheers Din

Din is there any chance you have these as a pdf that I can print and view. I find this easier to view from the start in order.

It appears that you have a paper for each model I think. And from there you have tidied up and expanded upon.

This way I can view them in a methodical order.

>>7726

Hi Jopo,

What model you referred to? K should be just planet specific constants, maybe in the electric count model there is room to plug internal heat in K. But i would at first hand advice to treat that separately math wise

>>7724

Thx man

Yea. k allows you to have a changing exponential. What results in logarithmic plotting. That way it captures the development of the scalar in atmosphere debt

>>7725

Well i posted them in a reverse way. Have 4 more manuscripts with build up to there. It started with relating the scalar to pressure divided by density. Another energy density temperature proxy

i will see what i can do pdf wise

>>7727

Great catch man. You bring it another level deeper.

For a first paper i propose to keep it simple. For that i like to know what you think about the simplification with the right dimensions i did here

>>7716 and here >>7717

Hope AI isn't hallucinating there, haven't double checked yet.

Also first paper not a single mention about climate science

Already made a full paper concept. Will mail that to you

If it gets published we could seek grants at institutions. To do the fun in depth stuff we like to do for fun anyway

>>7731

I think those two papers are what I have been looking for. Something for me to get my grounding and then learn your work.

Also look forward to your final doc. As I do need to read it from the start. At the moment it is all your work but not in a order that will guide me.

So I find Chatgpt math to be horrible. However it does open up avenues to explore..

I have not written papers either (officially) Just my mumblings and thought bubbles.

SO with my thoughts and once put together I use AI to present a paper. Work on it, changes etc.

Then I ask all other AI to critique it. First up make it clear to critique the methodology, math, novelty, presentation etc etc.

I stress to it to only comment on what the paper claims. Not what it does not.

You clearly have very good physics. Where I am more practical in application. I work with electricity so I know how electric fields work. It really is the basis of my work.

But my knowledge is not as diverse as yours. Perhaps a good match

>>7732

I also work like that. Just let AI read your paper 2 and went on from there, with proposed improvements

Paper i sent by mail needs refinement. Also on a math part

But basically i think you proved why Boltzman black body temperature works

He just states that it works

So it is complementary but higher up fundamentally

>>7734

It allows to study the atmosphere from a fundamental perspective

>>7730

Great catch man. You bring it another level deeper. Would be great if we can unify it on that level.

Your knowledge within your own field is impressive

>>7730

Relating to pressure works out for 1 bar temp

For other layers, and getting the right scalar exponential i think the best approach is relating it as field forcing on pressure divided by density. That is the temperature giving proxy as per the ideal gas law

>>7738

Note that this is model A research, so it doesn't work on all planets

Need to do the same with weighted unified model to get a universal match

>>7738

Relating it to pressure divided by density unifies it with dr Holmes work

But he can't explain why it so hot at surface level just by atmospheric weight

He explains it as diabetic auto compression

What by most gets dismissed

We explain it in a field forcing way, increased field forcing with depth

And we can back it up with fundamentals

>>7740

>diabetic auto compression

Meant adiabatic

>>7738

In the second picture there is a Venus calculation at the bottom

How i see it is that where AI talks about surface level. It means the 1 bar level

>>7734

In the paper i sent i forgot to input model b lol

Also many interpretations are wrongly formulated or just wrong

And it needs many appendixes with background math and example calculations. Already have many but don't want to info overload at once

Think it is best to split the work into 2 papers

First just focusing on near zero and 1 bar

The second one how to accurately and fundamentally right adjust the scaler exponential k. And how to implement heat capacity differences, and incorporate internal heat

>>7726

How this relates to internal heat can be read here

>>7722

This basically means that the the planets always balance out incoming flux and outgoing flux is wrong

Happens to be at earth. But observable planets with with internal heat behave differently

By that proving that the internal long wave structure doesn't ad heat

>>7746

>always balance out incoming flux and outgoing flux is wrong

Whit that i meant purely solar flux

>>7748

Am already working on making tailor made papers for each relevant scientific

Sending you an attempt to connect all fields in 1 paper was a bit retarded

Hello Din

Apologies for being offline. I have had plenty of problems with the internet. (and still do). I got your emails. I am having problems understanding which paper it is I need to read and which follows which. I understand the generallity of where you are going with this. And I like it. It reads very complex. I feel it does not need to read so complex though. But I will wait until you have presented these in a order that will make the paper flow so I can follow it better. There are some minor issues in the introductions.

I feel you can benefit greatly from watching a series of videos produced by Jeff Yee. He deals with field energy and how Charge, mass, gravity and more are all linked. With that knowledge I am sure it will provide you with much more insight. You clearly are very motivated and intelligent to say the least. What is your profession Din?

Here is the link to the videos. Scroll on down and you will find many videos that I am sure will find interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/@EnergyWaveTheory/videos

>>7754

Yea. Going directly against climate science won't get anything published. lol

>>7755

LOL. Not sure about being famous. I feel the climate industry will still stifle the message. But at least we know we nailed it. Your work on tying it in with internal energy and extending to all pressure levels is amazing. I cannot wait to view the whole document before you send it off please.

Reading snips here and there is difficult to piece it all together. Although I do have a fair idea on what you are doing.

Also I would lke to comment on Po's universal Temperature law. Temperature was just an outcome (artifact) of energy density. My work beginning in 2022 with “Earth's and Venus’ average temperature at 1 bar using the Charged Atmosphere and Faraday's Constant” which really is Model C . So not sure stating temperature is correct. Yes it is the outcome. But it was not the way I approached it.

I am working on something else at the moment. And I feel it will compliment this work a lot. Unsure if to add into this paper as this paper is already very heavy for most users. Bringing in Kepplers Third Law (HINT) may just take it over the edge

>>7757

Would love to see your complementary work man. I also made a complementary conclusion. Resulting in another law, but best to keep out the first 3 combined paper submission

I will send you 9 pictures in the right order. Ask AI to read them all and analyze and peer review, think AI can analyze 2 pictures per upload.

Can you double check if the calculation of the 3 models K value is right. And can you related to model C figure out what the electron count is at earth 1 bar level?

Cheers Din

>>7758

I introduced a new sign Qh (net added heat higher up in the atmosphere.

That nailed it and allows to reverse engineer that part, while staying fundamentally and empirically correct

>>7757

Mail with 9 pictures is sent

>>7760

After AI analyzed all 9 pictures can ask AI to split it up in 3 papers

sent you a email

>>7762

Yea. thx for the formatting tips. Will look into it.

How is the AI peer review response on your side?

>>7763

There is no point in both of us doing the same formatting work. Would be great if you can do that part.

Will be reflected in the paper authorship role section

>>7764

No chance yet to view document. Just converting via OCR to a LaTex File. This will tak a little time. Then we need go through and make sure that CAT GPT did not mess up the OCR translation. So far it looks ok.

>>7765

Don't spend too much time on the latex format. We will make multiple field specific papers, those need latex formatting

Just have it in 3 pdf's is enough for now

>>7766

And please don't share it with anyone until we get it published

lol

I just finished it. Still needs a bit of work to get it right.

I am still struggling with the format of this. So are you proposing multiple seperate papers instead of one larger one? Which could alighn with the way ZI am reading the files. Is like one paper per jpg supplied?

>>7768

9 files is total compiled work. can also put that in 1 pdf

the point is to get for both of us an easy file to upload to ai. then let it peer review the info, so both of us can work on suggested improvements

>>7769

uploading 9 image files every new session with ai is time consuming. lol

Ok. Got it. Will do that tomorrow now. Ready for bed.

See you after

>>7771

Seen the pdf. first page is black on my side but will see how ai reads it

thx for the help

Good night

>>7772

Never mind. black page is fixed. just wasn't loaded yet

>>7771

Hmmm

Without the additional visual proofs like calculated tables the AI cant do a good peer review.

Now it states much work needs to be done, and not clear if it is empirically and fundamentally correct.

While with the 9 pictures upload it states that the work is empirically and fundamentally correct, and nearly finished

Good morning Din

If you use Chat GPT for the tidying up and formatting then CHAT gpt will also be able to present the work in pdf format for you.

>>7775

tried that by text prompt but didn't work right

Anyhow. Revised all, simplified all, brought full unification with ground work back, and defined things better

Brought the info overload back 2 pictures what could be combined with 1 of your groundwork papers

Will sent mail

Linked in gravitational entropy

>>7776

Don't need to convert it

Just want your reflexional view if this is going the right way

To avoid summary reading can ask ai to fully write out what is in the pictures

>>7779

Good afternoon to you Din. And LATE night to me. LOL 11.15PM

>>7780

Yea together we work 24 hours a day on this lol

I have been looking at the papers you provided earlier today. Much confusion as it does not merge in with the initial position of where I was.

In saying that I know your thoughts are at another level. You are excited as much as I was some years back. SLOW DOWN. You will NAIL it.

In the interim the numbers do not seem right. I will send you my responses now..

oops. look Like I sent it earlier according to my email train. This is odd., Thought I had in drafts

Never mind looks like it has been sent via email

Oh boy, that is a lot of AI messing up lol

Regarding to relating it to Boltzman constant or the ideal gas law at 1 bar is because that is a reference point where your model unifies with the other 2

Useful for atmosphere analysis in relation to scalar a when it deviates from 1 bar

I corrected the my proposed alternative model c with the help of the Advocado number

So ignore tables or info i sent regarding model c

Got it right now, your way is also right

>>7790

Hi Jopo

Yea. AI used 1 Pa as toa. should be 1 mPa or even smaller for good analysis

>>7791

With scalar a value 1 there is no field compression. That is the field strength just before exciting the first molecules

In the math that is expressed by multiplying the models constants value times 1

>>7792

I Associate 255 Kelvin with approx. 0.5 Bar or 5100 meters. Not TOA?

Yea. Here AI got it right

Just comparing the scalar 1 value with scalar 100 in terms of joules per cubic meter

>>7793

I mean here >>7784

With scalar value 1.0000000000001 can calculate TOA temperature

>>7799

Just focus on earth and venus here. No internal heat adjustment done in this table

Hi Jopo,

Sent you a reply mail. Will try to look further into the equation workings. But this is my view at first sight

Hi Din

There are so many drafts I am unsure as to which one to look at. So with regards to your email you just sent which paper is this in.

You need to provide me with the numbers from start to finish. Once I see that it will fall into place. At the moment there are leaps in assumptions. Some of the stuff produced I cannot get it to match what is writtten there. But then again they could be old models as well. Are talking about model A from 19 hours ago?

>>7803

Sent you 2 pictures. first one is the model A math build up. Second on the joules per m3 table and magnitudes applied in relation to the constants K value

>>7804

Just look at model A. Model c equation in that picture is not correct, but got that right now

>>7805

OK Stay with me. I am going to write this up and I want to derive 288K using your scalar model. I will email that shortly.

OK email sent. hopefully you can talk me through this. I am missing a step somewhere

AI refuses to call it resonance point fitting

Sees it as direct proof for temperature setting at those points. And everything plugged in is planet specific, not related to a sing sun planet flux

Sorry that calculation I did should have been at ^7 not ^9

So result is 5914

i will sent you a new manuscript with newest example calculation and conclusions

Takes a few minutes

Hmmm there is a factor 100 difference between calculated K value and what should be to get the right joules per cubic meter to get the right temperature

Will sent the info image anyway

No. Drop sigma. And then you will get 288K

100*6.94E7 = 6.94E9 ^0.25 = 288

Sigma not required

>>7812

That is it. You are brilliant man

Step closer to fully grasp the breakthrough

>>7813

Who is one step closer. You are me? That sigma was a massive hinderance. I just could not see what you were doing.

OK Din it is late here 12.30AM. Must go to bed. We will get there. I have alway been wary of calculations done by AI. They will lead astray if left to their own devices.

I want to know how you calculate the internal heat. Or do you just infer that from the additional energy emitted?

>>7815

Most simple is just ad the temperature equivalent after doing the model math based on observed internal heat numbers

I also have an integrated version but that is based on the separating K times a before doing temperature calculation

Whenever i use sigma there i don't mean it in a classical way. It is a reversed Stefan Boltzman. for the conversion of potential field energy to molecule vibration

>>7816

goedemiddag Din

There is a translation barrier here when trying to communicate with you. Probably the easiest way is to apply numbers. This way I can visualise and calculate.

.................................

At this stage I cannot start from 1 pascal unless reverse engineering the (P/Po) ^0.706. Is this curve fitting. Not sure. It only works in a convective adiabatic environment. For Earth it is to around 180mb.

So If you can show your variation to the model with numbers then I will have a better grasp on what you doing.

............................................

I’m also contemplating up on whether to slightly revise Model A. The numerical results stay exactly the same, but the conceptual framing might work better.

Currently, the model is based on applying the static form of the gravitational force law and distributing that force over Earth’s surface.

But if we instead frame it using centripetal force, we get the exact same values and units (as expected), but with a more intuitive interpretation: the force now represents the inertia of the planet in orbital motion — not a static force being “applied” to Earth.

It seems like a cleaner conceptual bridge, especially when comparing field dynamics across the models.

Does this resonate with you?

..............................................................................

Where are you sourcing these internal heat energy numbers from?

>>7817

Hi Jopo,

Yea, would be great if the math and description tells the story behind it better. So the reader understands what it represents

Sometimes it is better to keep it simple tho. At least worth a try

Regarding adding heat. Have seen AI do that in different ways. Including adjusting the constant K value, what is a big NO lol

Most simple is when AI is trained on doing your model math right. Then ask for a column between predicted 1 bar and observed. With a seperate column showing how much Kelvin should be added because of the planets internal heat

Often times AI refers to suggesting using Python code

But can overrule that by telling AI something like "just write it out here and put it in a column"

>>7818

I try to dive in my saved info to find some adding heat math examples

>>7821

Never mind. that attempt failed

>>7825

Yes. I am with the planet alone math factor 100 short even tho the scalar is set on 100

255K is the effective emission height temperature

And to make it some more complex. Joules wise with 100 times less than 1 bar should get the near zero bar temperature. That is higher up than the effective emission height

Will explain in my own words as short as possible by mail.

It will explain why you need x 100. And how to fix my approach

Goedemiddag Din.>>7826 Misschien moeten we eens proberen Google Translate te gebruiken. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik soms context mis als je praat. Ik ben er zeker van dat dit een vertaalprobleem is. Werkt dit goed? Dus zoals ik al een paar keer heb gezegd. Ik heb moeite om te zien wat je aan het doen bent. maar als ik getallen zie, zal het resoneren. zo niet, dan zal ik het vragen en dan zal het met mij resoneren. Ik heb nog een paar modellen om je te geven. Maar het heeft geen zin totdat ik precies begrijp hoe u van plan bent om vanaf de T.O.A. naar beneden te werken en de temperatuur naar beneden te berekenen, inclusief de stralingscomponenten. Dan kom je bij de Toposfeer en werkt het model aan de dichte atmosfeer. Zoals de mijne doet tot aan de tropopauze. Om de stratosfeer temepertures te mimmicken, zullen mensen versteld staan. Gebruik je de elektronendichtheid per mol?

Did this work OK?

I put my translation back into google translate. It is a little different to what I sad. Close but annoying differences that can side track you?

No just stay on English. Most science terms i am rusty to say in Dutch

My computer crashed so from my chromebook i sent some important info here. Hope i get it to work again lol, or else i lost all my documents.

The Isothermal Atmosphere and Scale Height

The isothermal atmosphere is a theoretical model where the temperature is assumed to be constant with altitude. In this model, the pressure decreases exponentially with height according to the barometric formula:

P(z)=P0e−z/H

P(z) is the pressure at altitude z.

P0bis the pressure at the reference level (e.g., sea level).

H is the scale height.

he scale height (H) is a fundamental parameter of this model. It represents the vertical distance over which the pressure (and density) of the atmosphere decreases by a factor of e, which is the base of the natural logarithm (approximately 2.718).

The value of the scale height is given by the formula:

H= Mg/RT

Where:

R is the ideal gas constant.

T is the constant temperature (in Kelvin).

M is the molar mass of the gas.

g is the acceleration due to gravity.

Now, let's look at what happens at one scale height. At an altitude equal to the scale height, i.e., at z=H, the pressure is:

P(H)=P0e−H/H = P0e−1 =P0e/1

​

The pressure at one scale height is approximately 36.8% (1/e) of the pressure at the reference level.

Conversely, the drop in pressure over one scale height is:

P0−P(H) = P0−P0e/1 =P0(1−e/1) ≈ P0 (1−0.368)= P0( 0.632)

The 63% is the percentage of the total weight of the atmosphere that is contained within the first scale height (H) of the isothermal model.

In other words, in a simplified, isothermal atmosphere, the column of air from the ground up to one scale height contains roughly 63% of the total mass of the entire atmosphere above it. The remaining 37% of the mass is distributed throughout the rest of the column, extending infinitely upward.

This result is important because it demonstrates the exponential decay of pressure and density in a static atmosphere. It shows that the vast majority of the atmospheric mass and pressure are concentrated in the lowest layers. For the Earth's atmosphere, the scale height is typically around 8.5 km, meaning that over half of the atmospheric mass is contained within the lowest 8.5 km.

The correct interpretation is that approximately 63% of the total atmospheric mass (or weight) is found within the first scale height (H) of an isothermal atmosphere model, which is the layer that generates the first 63.2% of the total atmospheric pressure.

​

Dont mind all the back ground math above. What is important is that 1 scale height above 1 bar represents 63.2% of the mass

Back to where we are with the math so far

On the upper part of the equation we have the forces, on the lower part of the equation we have the realm where those forces have effect on.

We made it 3D so the forces have a uniform effect on the whole atmosphere

However, what we want is the forces effect on the 1 bar level

First we isolate 1 scale height zone of a virtual atmospheric column. That is the 63.2% weight contribution from within that scale height

By that we fundamentally by focussing on 1 scale height is telling that we examined the first 8.5 km column above 1 bar, the troposphere

Now we want to examin 1 cubic meter of the 1 bar height level where our math leads to joules per m3.

And convert that joules per m3 to joules per second per m2 (what equals w/m2) so with the to the power by 1/4 we get a temperature in Kelvin

Can use the inverse Stefan Boltzman for that. When multiplying the sigma takes energy in motion and converts it into a fixed state (w/m2). When dividing by the sigma constant the reverse happens. Conversion of a fixed state to energy in motion (joules per second per m2)

Because the energy output is uniform within 1 bar m3 gas and because we now examin an isothermal atmosphere model can use the divide by sigma (those are conditions to be met so it is fair to say that when you take a vertical 1 meter 2d slice of a 1 m3 gas the conversion ratio is correct)

Now examin the Stefan Boltzman number and what happens to that number when you do it to the power of 1/4

The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (sigma), raised to the power of 1/4, is approximately 0.01543.

And when we project that to 1 scale height mass multiply 0.0154313 (more precise sigma, raised to the power of 1/4) with 0.6321205588 (presents 63.2% scale height mass,, more precise number) =

0.6321205588 x 0.0154313 = 0.0097544

Very close approximation of 0.01

Since the math what is done is zooming in from forces on the whole atmosphere to a column in the lower atmosphere to 1 cubuc meter, to joules per second per m2 (what equals w/m2) ,we know now what the math does what is left out in your and my equations, and why there is a direct temperature result when applying the K values x 100 or equation result x 100

The realm is in the lower part of the equation. The force in the upper part.

So the lower part needs a dividing by 0.01, what results if you leave the math i just described out, in having to multiply the upper part of the equation by 100 or multiplying the equation end result

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (j=σT 4) and Temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which uses the constant σ, describes the radiant energy flux (j) from a perfect black body in terms of its absolute temperature (T).

For an Isothermal Object: If an object is isothermal (meaning its temperature and pressure profile) is uniform across its entire surface), then you can apply the law directly to the entire surface. The calculation is straightforward: you just plug in the single temperature T and the surface area to find the total power radiated.

When we talk about an "isothermal slice" of the atmosphere, we are creating a theoretical model where a thin layer is assumed to have a uniform temperature. This assumption is what makes it possible to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to that slice to calculate its radiative energy flux. Without that assumption, the temperature would be a variable across the slice, making the calculation much more difficult.

>>7827

My computer crashed, so i have no acces to my documents.

But a short answer is that i dont work back from TOA

I figured out a way to go down from 1 bar and up from 1 bar, while keeping the correct joules per m3 at different height levels

How to do an alternative lapse rate calculation with incorporated heat capacity, with same result as the classic way. However, more suitable for different planet research.

And how to describe with math what happens in the tropopause and stratosphere

What happens is that higher up the pressure goes down but the temperature goes up (by ozone UV, among other things)

So what is a possible solution is letting the lapse rate tracking the pressure divided by density and conclude that any added temperature is because of added heat at higher up layers.

This alows to distinct between gravity field forces and other influences

>>7835

What is posted above is model A related

Model C is very good for analyzing the thermosphere

Would love to see the tracking tools you figured out

>>7834

>radiative energy flux

Wherever this text talks about radiative energy flux

What it means in our model is the joules per second per m2 output as a result of the gravity field (coupled with electric field) forcings

Joules per second is, unit-wise, the same as w/m2.

>>7840

First formula is not correct. Hate it when AI spits out wrong suggestion. lol

>>7844

Forget about section 2, talking about your model B. It forgot the initial relevant input and assumes another model

>>7847

hello Din

Which document is it yuo talk of. We have a lot of drafts..

>>7858

Hi Jopo

I never tell here how we derive K

That picture shows a reverse enginered way to show what the value of K should be

I try to go back to the basics. Understanding what is under the hood

>>7854

Note this link above before trying to comprehend

Whenever things work with sigma. It might be the tidal force ratio

That is the same number. But 7 orders of magnitude difference

>>7848

I am just going to write some things in response as unsure if AI or you are asking me questions. Or You asking AI.

6.94E9 J/m3 = 288K^4 = 390 / 5.6704E-8

Energy density can have the fourt root applied directly to get temperature.

However to use Watts to get temperature or energy density one must use 5.6704E-8

This is my observations so far.

The 101.02 you used is very close to 101.325 Hectopascal or 101325 pascals

You have in the equation 6.94E11 J/m3? Unsure where this comes from? A.I is notoriously bad with numbers.

>>7853

Yes, I to have continued to notice many similarities as this. and I do believe they are true.

Earth is our base reference. Candeish Experiment done here on Earth.

And the minor differences in my opinion can easily be explained by the evolvement of science in accuracy of our constants. We are still adjusting constants. Even today

I like Gemini much more than chatGTP

More to the point and less halucinating

There is a lot here to comment on. I will be home soon and peruse this

>>7871

Still not good lol, puzzle goes on

Hi Din

Do you want to try communicate via Whats App. Hopefully we maybe able to communicate. Maybe worth a try?

>>7873

Hi Jopo,

I dont have whats app. Dont even have a smartphone lol.

And my computer crashed again (think it is now fully dead) so for now no access to email

My style has always been communicating on anonymous forums and boards like this

Not sure why you want to change a format that works

Could open our own physics sub board so we get a board admin interface and can delete posts if wanted.

But there is no one here anyway.

Can see the active IPś (ISP) who went to the philosophy board past 24 hours, and that are 3 IPś, to the whole sub board with over 100 threads

https://8kun.top/index.html

After 751 posts the thread is full. Then can open a new thread, and the old one will be deleted in time, unless manually saving the info with an archive site

Anyhow.

I think this is a big break through

>>7857

Can now predict 3 different atmosphere resonance points. Both on earth and Venus, since the scale height metrics there are similar.

Got my e-mail working on laptop

So will check your mail

>>7880

Hi Jopo,

Do the math for the K value of my planet K metrics only approach

I get the the same number, but ten times to the power of 7

10k difference (100 x 100)

>>7881

Well. 100 x difference between your and my modelling

And 100 x 100 compared to actual joules per m3 at 1 bar

>>7882

Think i have bridged the gap tho. Will send by nail

Another tip for more clarifying

Is when you use a ratio between tsi earth and planet

Replace that with the ratio between distance of the sun vs earth and venus

Must be the same, if the ratio is constructed the same

>>7884

Number result must be the same but it makes the story telling different

Just out of left field this one. Did you know that (1-G^.25 x 360 degrees). 1 Cycle of the sun = 0.0289644

This is Earths atmospheric molar mass. Surely a coincidence

This come about from my model E. You will get that soon. Just tidying it up

>>7886

More coincidences lol. I like 360 degree math. Found a devine 360 degree coding weaved into many alphabets

Hello Din

Wow. There is so much here to read.

I have sent you an email. I have been working on this for a few days now. It is basically what we are discussing. But a few more models.

A solar system wide energy constant and also using Centripetal Force as well as the existing Model Aof the Sun-Earth gravitational force. The centripetal force appears to have a bettert feel about it. Energy being contained within it. And also aligns with Model "F" I feel.

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.

>>7891

Ok, will check my mail.

Could let the AI do the reading and just fire questions at AI

>>7890

This is very similar to my Model F reasoning.

Also Din. At some stage you were talking of the number 3.16. What was the reasoning behind that?

>>7893

The 3.16 number is derived from 100 to the power of 1/4

can use that number to calculate the temperature at the near zero bar zone (below the thermosphere, the edge of the normal atmosphere)

By taking the 288 Kelvin 1 bar temperature and divide it by 3.16 you get around 91 Kelvin. Same difference as me setting the scalar as 100 vs 1

Looks like I forgot to add in the original Model B equation into that draft i sent you?

>>7896

Not sure yet. Watching a soccer match now, and dinner after that. Will see early evening on my side of the world

>>7893

Nice ground work paper section!

I like the table with the different means to get the same result

Model F is a great find. For clarrity would change the order of the lower end of the equation a bit tho

Like 365 (days in a year) x 3600 (seconds in a day)

>>7898

Oh wait, 3600 is the secs in an hour

And missing 24 hours in a day.

Nice referance point indicator anyway tho

>>7899

>>7893

I try to figure out a way to defend it as is.

>>7900

Oh wait, optimal of 101.02 is here

>>7848

>>7900

The other percentage difference can be explained by this:

The difference between 1 bar and Earth's surface level pressure, expressed as a ratio, is approximately 1:1.01325. This is because the average atmospheric pressure at sea level (which is what is meant by "surface level") is about 1.01325 bar. One bar is defined as 100,000 Pascals (Pa), while the average sea level pressure is slightly higher at 101,325 Pa (or 1.01325 bar

>>7903

Oh, wait. That is only the case if actual surface level temperature on earth is reported as 1 bar temperature

Overall i think you are too modest

I will explain tomorrow about Venus having a less long scale height but also 63.2% of the mass in it

Combined with the reversed (divided by) sigma it yields the same scalar

And justifies the same planet only input outcome

General tip

Can zoom in or zoom out on this image board by pressing ctrl and scroll the mouse wheel

Regarding model F. The table you provided shows an interesting universal constant. There must be a there, there

>>7909

Hello Din.

Yes Model F is key to this. It unites the models I feel.

Also I last night did something special that again puts an end to theis GHG rubbish.

I was able to calculate the molar Mass on Venus by only knowing the temperature at 1 Bar. It returned an astonishing accurate 43.5 g/mol. I will send you an email explaining how I did it. If one can do this then it proves that atmospheric composition is not a factor in Venus temperature.

>>7910

Wow. That is extremely handy for habitable exopanet research.

There are over 1000 known exoplanets. If we split that and each reveal 1 x a weak a new exoplanet info for twitter/patreon subscribers there is enough content for the next 10 years

Could also get a grant to do that

It is very late here. r early morning. 3.00AM

My mind is exploding. So tired.

I think i can add this in my work. Perhaps as a model to calculate Venus atmosphere temp at 1 bar just by knowing the molar mass I can work the temperature. LOL It must so demoralising for them.

>>7912

Then that would be model H

Maybe this could be model i

Relationship between molar mass, velocity, and universal gas constant regarding 1 bar earth temperature

>>7894

>>7914

Hi Din.

That is about right. I use 1.496E11 mts and 29785 m/s

I will send you my latest model. I will incorperate that into my multi model paper. LOL.

How are you going with the G^0.25 *100 scalar. It is not a huge deal if cannot do.

But if you can nail this and have it start at TOA that would negate the need for a scalar and likely provide a better unit match. I take it this is what the scalar height work is that you are doing. I apologise for not keeping up in that area. Your mind is whizzing around where I need time to read and understand what it is you are doing.

Probably the same for you to me.

>>7915

If we go with the fundamental explanation of why x 100 . Then there is no need for the scalar at 1 bar = 100

Could flip that into scalar at 1 bar = 1

Regarding 9 different models. I think it is wise to split the work into a trilogy. To avoid peer reviewer brain drain. And to have room to fully explain each model

Hello Din

No work this week due to Eye surgery

Still working on my recent stuff of Molar Mass and investigating the additional heat source for the Gas Giants. I am wondering if the higher electron / charge to mass ratio is in fact the "hidden heat source" Seems a little counter intuitive. Initially it was my thought. I asked Chat GPT and now it is still fixed on that.

I am a little troubled by watering down a paper to get it published. Yes I do understand that it improves the chances. As i said. I am troubled with that.

So back to your work. You have so much that I am waiting for a close to final cut on the use of your scalars and starting at TOA or 1 instead of 100.

That would be good to see with numbers applied to it at various pressure levels. You may have shown me this before. But so many papers here I cannot find.

You have a good evening

Test - Sin

>>7920

>1AU/0.723AU for Venus

Yea. For cross reference this is one of the keys

Remember your conversation with Phil M. And later on the negative reaction he passed on from dr Holmes

That is ok tho. People just tend to promote their own work, and own derived limited conclusions

>>7919

The ground work has implications for multiple science fields

It is ok if you don't want to limit publication to a theoretical quantum field science paper

But when wanting to include publication to planetary and atmosphere science journal. Then language wise need to to some bending

However. Our fundamental first principles derived models framework sets a set of limits on what the radiative framework science can theorize on.

Like you posted on JP site "no need for adjusting for internal heat on earth and lower Venus"

That is one of the limitations the groundwork sets

>>7924

>don't want

Should be "want", misspoke

>>7924

Hi Din. Have sent you an email

>>7926

Sent mail back

As addition. Yea, i suggest the core framework stays the same but we could describe it more in terms of lapse rates, hydrostatics, and radiative balance, instead of the electrodynamics/QED language

That is only for a planetary or atmospheric science journal paper. I suggest making a few versions, of which the Quantum field language one is the coolest. But the atmospheric physics one is the most impactful

Could even make an advanced math journal version.

Need to have a clean base framework first tho. After that it is easy with the help of AI language models to change the language into what the journal peer reviewers understand

>>7927

Correction.

The term radiative balance is never needed

That is an effect of universal fundamental forces

>>7929

Hello Din

I have been having a break from this. Too many late nights in the last month. The mind being overly excited has had an impact on my sleep. LOL. Seriously not good for health.

So I do need to get back to what you have proposed. Hopefully in the next few days.

However, one quick note. Something I was aiming to investigate. Does any of your work have a element of circularity about it. It was something I sensed a while back. I have not looked at it properly yet or even ask Chatgpt.

Hope you have been well

>>7929

Als with respect to radiative balance. This implies that OLR is an effect of universal fundamental forces? Just as Nikolov and Zeller have argued.

>>7931

Someone posted this vid on JP site.

Nikolov and Zeller also used the ideal gas law to predict lapse rate in thick atmosphere

Think it is good to watch, to get familiar with part of the proposed follow up math

So far i agree with much of the N & Z work. Not everything. And i think some of it is too simplistic. Our work has much more math derived insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTMEc5DPWx0

>>7930

WB Jopo,

Good to take a step back from time to time, also for me.

You are very good at boiling things down to a short summary of the essential math

For now only thing what could be added from the pictures info i sent is the part of picture 1 where it explained that there are 2 pathways. The ideal gas pathway, and the adjusted Stefan Boltzmann pathway

Am not happy with the follow up math. Earth calibration is not needed. And the story of the scalar needs to be more clear in both going up from 1 bar and going down

Regarding circular reasoning. Only the Qh is inferred (added heat at higher parts in the atmosphere by things like latent heat, uvlight absorption, or chemical processes)

The inferring of Qh is empirical because that is the only possible reason why the measured temperature development is different than the gravity related ideal gas law lapse rate predicts

Once it is known how much Qh is where. Then there are ways to figure out what kind of gas mixture is there, and what process causes the extra heating at height. Once that is known also that part becomes predictive

>>7933

Last 3 pictures i sent is too much for a groundwork paper. But the last picture calculations show that atmospheric heating above 1 bar zone at Venus is not because of co2. It is because of so2 there

Hello Din

Have sent you an email. Regarding a very unusual coincidence in these numbers

>>7935

Hi Jopo,

Nice find

Sent you an image with first impression of AI on my side

>>7936

Remember how i made a mistake by using divide by the sigma when not needed?

The end result was not 288K but 255K, the average effective emission height temperature

Think that accident also ties into this

>>7939

AI response is not exactly what i meant, but could be useful in part anyway

Absolutely need to take it onboard..

Also back to the that correlation. When comparing to our nearby planet I notice that if we get TOA 1.1995E8 *100 / 2601 returns a 1/2 atmosphere on Venus as it does on Earth. But not inc the 100 scalar again. This is very interesting.

>>7944

The 0.98 and some decimals more is the result of scale height weight ratio 0.632 times sigma to the power of 1/4

>>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