A ? of force.

In all credit to yourself, at least you do not mention banning me. The bullshit is not bullshit.
I really do understand it, I am just on google now trying to understand how a freezer works and evaporation makes cold.....
I will try to associate this with energy loss to gravity, and try to consider a way to refreeze the North to prevent gravity shift contorting , what I am telling you gravity does is what it does and how it works, we can clearly observe this where there is no ice in the sea, because those areas have a greater intensity of light per square meter, that allows the water by entropy means to keep its equilibrium state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mods here are somewhat more relaxed with regard to idiots than the last forum you got banned from.
But it'll come. I can wait.

You have the arrogant effrontery to say this and then follow it up with more bullshit:

Utter unmitigated crap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I accuse you of not understanding the reality and it is actually me who knows my stuff. It is true because it is what happens, we can clearly observe that the less energy a mass contains, the less effect gravity has on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

heavier denser gases hug the surface, they are heavier because their energy is greater than less dense mass and gravity has a greater effect on the energies within.

 

I will make the bold statement of suggesting that Helium and Hydrogen and all other buoyant gases have by entropy means a greater intake of energy than loss of energy by entropy means to gravity, explaining the concept to be true, if these particular gases have a low combustion point, and also explaining why they have an anti gravity effect compared to the entropy of the denser heavier gases.
Even air becomes anti gravitational if we add energy, this can be demonstrated in a hot air balloon, by entropy means the air increases its energy and expands, causing the energy of the air to over throw the potential of energy of the balloon and basket that is still being extracted by the force of gravity.

 

Another example of your total cluelessness.
You really are the poster boy for the Dumb As F*ck Brigade, aren't you?

You claim to know science and you don't even know the difference between "anti-gravity" and buoyancy.
Tell me, how much "anti-gravity" will a hot air balloon display when there's no atmosphere?

 

You really need to stop using the word "entropy" as an all purpose noun/adjective.

 

That is being obtuse, the balloon is in the atmosphere, when the atmosphere ''thins'' at altitude, the balloon still contains the energy from the lower atmosphere?

The balloon always captures the expansion the same and always contains the same volume of energy and air density a constant to outside the balloon?

 

I consider I use it in the correct context -

1. In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder.

Entropy is an increase or decrease in energy of matter.

 

Amazing how you can manage to copy and paste the definition, then summarize it wrong. But in either case, it isn't like salt and pepper - you can't just sprinkle it randomly in your writing to dress it up.

 

Increase or decrease in energy , why what other ways is there other than that in any system?

 

Then it's bugger all to do with "anti-gravity" is it?

No.

No.

 

Of cause it's anti gravity up until the point of no atmosphere , the function of using just the air to overcome gravity then fails, the air in the balloon loses its pressure I presume to the greater volume.

Consider the Aluminium foil experiment , where the aluminium is placed with a containment hanging on an electrode, a balloon is rubbed and placed by the input end of the electrode, the electrical energy is transferred and the aluminium foils lift apart, opposing gravity and each other, because it is a flash by entropy means of energy increase to balance the foils equilibrium for a momentary state.

 

Either batshit crazy or the worst sort of troll.

 

Nope.
It's not "anti-gravity" because it doesn't work on gravity.
It ONLY works in an atmosphere.

Meaningless bullshit.

 

A balloon filled with hydrogen or helium will rise into the air simply because the density of filled balloon is less than the air. The density of styrofoam is greater than air so it will not rise into the air, however the density of styrofoam is less than water so it will rise through water. It has nothing in the slightest to do with 'anti-gravity' or entropy.

Not sure what you are talking about, but if you are referring to the attraction between a balloon and aluminum this is the reason. The balloon is an insulator and when is rubbed there will be a build up of electrons on the outside of the rubber. If a piece of aluminum foil, which is a conductor, is placed near the balloon there will be a migration of positive charge to the side of the aluminum foil that is nearest the balloon (due to the negative charge on the balloon attracting the mobile charges in the conductive aluminum). If the charge on the balloon is high enough the electrostatic force will be greater than the force of gravity and the foil will move to the balloon.

Again there is no magic, no anti-gravity or entropy involved.

 

No, it's not. Freeze half the water at the North Pole and mass stays the same. Melt it again - and mass stays the same. No change in mass. This is why the Northern ice cap melting does not affect sea level, unlike melting in Antarctica.

 

Cool, now you know.

And we had our hottest year (not just summer) in recorded history.

 

I hope you don't get banned (you're pretty entertaining) but I fear that will be the end result of your pontificating and personal attacks.

You mean your bullshit is not bullshit? Well, at least you admit that it's basically bullshit now; that's an improvement.

You just contradicted yourself again.

No, no they don't.

 

You are now trying to argue now that your own science , and the inverse square law is wrong, per square meter the North poles gets less energy than the equator by light, it is only by the Thermodynamic increase in the atmosphere that the atmosphere is increasing in its energy capture, and the reason the poles are melting.
Doesn't anyone know anything on this forum?

''No, it's not. Freeze half the water at the North Pole and mass stays the same. Melt it again - and mass stays the same. No change in mass. This is why the Northern ice cap melting does not affect sea level, unlike melting in Antarctica.''

Water expands when it is frozen, hexagonal formation, an expansion of A to B, A is not the same size as B, take away A from B by size and A is no longer equal to B.
Water has no mechanism not to be distributed.