Conservarea energiei/Paradoxul Presiunii Barometrice/Gases

Avertisment: acest mesaj conţine exagerat de mult text în limba engleză! Dacă vei continua aşa, am să creez un topic separat în care voi arunca la grămadă mesajele tale ce conţin atât de mult text în engleză!

Aici postez pentru o mai buna accesare, in trei mesaje separate, subiectele extrem de importante care ne demonstreaza ca legea conservarii energiei a momentului unghiular (cu legatura cu energia kinetica, vezi linkul formidabil de mai jos, Laws of Physics) nu poate fi aplicat pentru moleculele din atmosfera, si faptul ca paradoxul presiunii barometrice/gases paradox ne arata ca diferentele de temperatura/gradient temperature nu pot explica traiectoriile norilor/curentilor atmosferice.

CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM PARADOX IN THE ATMOSPHERE:

Aceasta este explicatia oficiala:

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.


IATA ACUM DEMONSTRATIA FAPTULUI CA FIZICA OFICIALA OCOLESTE CU GRIJA ARGUMENTELE EXTREM DE PERTINENTE:

Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules
interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is
conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection
currents within the atmosphere (if you lived in Caithness, you'd know
all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These
convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these
are perhaps the greatest reason why the so-called 'closed system' is
invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different
components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon
composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged
angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule
will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of
angular momentum.

ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE
CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM. Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular
momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of
theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As
I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies.
That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have
the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how
far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases,
nor, in general, to fluids.

The "law of the conservation of angular momentum" was a grand-sounding name that did not really relate to anything in the real universe.

IATA ACUM CEA MAI PERFECTA DEMONSTRATIE A RELATIEI DINTRE ENERGIA KINETICA SI MOMENTUL UNGHIULAR, CU EXEMPLE SPECIFICE DIN FIZICA ATMOSFERICA:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Laws.htm



PARADOXUL PRESIUNII BAROMETRICE:

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


GASES PARADOX:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.

Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.

[Offtopic]

Cineva a scris: Avertisment: acest mesaj conţine exagerat de mult text în limba engleză! Dacă vei continua aşa, am să creez un topic separat în care voi arunca la grămadă mesajele tale ce conţin atât de mult text în engleză!

Pe un forum de cercetare, ca acesta, este necesara cunoasterea unei limbi straine, de preferabil engleza; responsabilitatea pentru a citi materialul in limba engleza, cel mai bun din toate materialele bibliografice posibile, este cea a cititorului (se pot folosi si site-uri online pentru traduceri acceptabile).

[/Offtopic]

ca să eviți sancțiunile merge și altfel, link către materialul original și doar mici citate aici, restul interpretări și explicații în limba dulce strămoșească!

și astfel poate învață și victoraș, ponta, să nu mai plagieze ... luînd exemplu de la noi ...

apropo, la cîte texte ai pus pe forumul ăsta mai că merge de o lucrare de doctorat!