# Thread: Ram Jet and Global Warming - is the physics similar?

1. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
We don't seem to have a problem in thinking a solid material warms up when radiant energy shines on to it. Maybe we even accept a liquid will do the same. But when it comes to a gas we struggle to think that it warms up directly from the radiant energy.
Obviously this is partly from the fact that if a medium was 100% transparent or 100% reflective it would not heat up. So a gas being very transparent lets the radiation through and does not heat up (much??? or not at all???).

But what happens when the atmosphere becomes dirty or opaque will fine particles suspended in the atmosphere heat as if they were a solid or a liquid?

Interesting and well written article on "Air Pollution".
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/air-...roduction.html
Think Venus.., a green house gone wild....

2. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Any thoughts on how after combustion the gases get hot and expand? What is the order of events in combustion?
Atoms collide ..... what next?
Depends on who you are asking. In my theory, particles are spheres that do not like to overlap. If they overlap, they scale down. But this allows other sphere to take advantage of this extra space, so they scale up. This is a cause, and effect situation that is circular. I found that the mathematics is circular (even spherical), and a particle will scale down until it becomes negative, then it will scale up negatively until it becomes positive. I believe that this is called ring mathematics. I developed this ring mathematics into something more like knot mathematics. Knot mathematics is like ring mathematics but works better with sphere. You get an electron orbit naturally, and you get the electron paths very accurately when energy is lost through entropy. The connected knots have very distinct paths that look like waves, but are particles. So...

The electron is a hole with a spin around it. Expand the hole, slow the spin, but expand the sphere. It's very difficult to do in your head. The best way to think about the change from positive no negative is to think of a bunch of basketballs cut in half. Now use those as imaginary particles. The convex faces bump one another, and are far apart. Convex to concave fit together like snake skin. Concave to concave also push apart, but are a bit more flexible. And to switch them around you just squeeze on the basketball, and turn it inside out. This is such a close analogy of the physics that you can use it as a template.

EDIT: I have just found on Wikipedia that Knot Mathematics already exists. My version is different to that, so I will call it Kissing Knot Mathematics. My knots are energy dependant, so can be sometimes open ended, and sometimes closed ended.

3. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Depends on who you are asking. In my theory, particles are spheres that do not like to overlap. If they overlap, they scale down. But this allows other sphere to take advantage of this extra space, so they scale up. This is a cause, and effect situation that is circular. I found that the mathematics is circular (even spherical), and a particle will scale down until it becomes negative, then it will scale up negatively until it becomes positive. I believe that this is called ring mathematics. I developed this ring mathematics into something more like knot mathematics. Knot mathematics is like ring mathematics but works better with sphere. You get an electron orbit naturally, and you get the electron paths very accurately when energy is lost through entropy. The connected knots have very distinct paths that look like waves, but are particles. So...

The electron is a hole with a spin around it. Expand the hole, slow the spin, but expand the sphere. It's very difficult to do in your head. The best way to think about the change from positive no negative is to think of a bunch of basketballs cut in half. Now use those as imaginary particles. The convex faces bump one another, and are far apart. Convex to concave fit together like snake skin. Concave to concave also push apart, but are a bit more flexible. And to switch them around you just squeeze on the basketball, and turn it inside out. This is such a close analogy of the physics that you can use it as a template.

EDIT: I have just found on Wikipedia that Knot Mathematics already exists. My version is different to that, so I will call it Kissing Knot Mathematics. My knots are energy dependant, so can be sometimes open ended, and sometimes closed ended.
Explain to me the reaction or combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you agree it is an exothermic reaction? The heat energy given off by the reaction, how is that linked to the velocity of the reactants?

4. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Explain to me the reaction or combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you agree it is an exothermic reaction? The heat energy given off by the reaction, how is that linked to the velocity of the reactants?
You would need new words to describe it. Yes it's a release of light, but only because the flip of particles is a barrier. It's more to do with time, which is a sink hole that stores energy. If you have X/Y/Z then you also have In/Out in the middle. Each particle resets X/Y/Z back to zero, so true X/Y/Z is...

X,Y,Z,In,Out,-X,-Y,-Z.

Which creates a complete Newton's Law of opposites. Then you put them in the right order to create a Kissing Knot.

And Time is a word that doesn't work in English. So that's why I said you need new words. Time is a vortex hole type of thing. It's like looking down a well.

5. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
...
And Time is a word that doesn't work in English. So that's why I said you need new words. Time is a vortex hole type of thing. It's like looking down a well.
That was powerful thought to say time is like looking down a well.

6. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
That was powerful thought to say time is like looking down a well.
I can make the model in 3D by scaling time down in the middle particle, and repeatedly putting particles in the well scaling them down, and then using that energy as though it were a bump force. So you are looking in a mirror facing another mirror, but the energy is real. And it happens inside every particle, so space time is all disjointed. And the well works in both directions, so time has no arrow. Time can either flow down the well, and pull everything in.. a snowflake, a hand, a neutrino, or it can flow out of the well to produce energy, and heat.. a sun, a photon, most puffy type objects. Then you can also use it for momentum with some knot mathematics.

7. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Time .... can flow out of the well to produce energy, and heat.. a sun, a photon, most puffy type objects. ...
You very close to a description of combustion ... "produce energy and heat..."
Does this energy unite dirrectly to the particles or do they have to be absorbed into solids first.

Like inside an internal combustion engine, the fuel is burned in air and heat is used to drive the piston. The heat of combustion that heats the gas does it heat the metal surrounding it before heating the gas that drives the piston? Or is the gas heated directly without having to bounce of the side of the metal?

8. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
You very close to a description of combustion ... "produce energy and heat..."
Does this energy unite dirrectly to the particles or do they have to be absorbed into solids first.

Like inside an internal combustion engine, the fuel is burned in air and heat is used to drive the piston. The heat of combustion that heats the gas does it heat the metal surrounding it before heating the gas that drives the piston? Or is the gas heated directly without having to bounce of the side of the metal?
The energy heads towards the area of least resistance, which will eventually circle around a hole.. an electron. The best way to trap heat, and energy is to position the holes so that they feed each other. When the particles bump, they shrink, and lose energy, but small particles like neutrinos can knock that energy back up again. A really efficient engine would somehow steer the neutrinos as a feed flow. You can make a complete knot out of this somehow, but the steering of particles would have to be exact.

I use this in my computer...

+ bump + = shrink

- bump - = grow

everything else = 0

So by mixing the right bump forces you can make a knot. But the particles have to also knot their own entropy. I can't see anyone doing that for a long time.

9. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
The energy heads towards the area of least resistance, which will eventually circle around a hole.. an electron. The best way to trap heat, and energy is to position the holes so that they feed each other. When the particles bump, they shrink, and lose energy, but small particles like neutrinos can knock that energy back up again. A really efficient engine would somehow steer the neutrinos as a feed flow. You can make a complete knot out of this somehow, but the steering of particles would have to be exact.
I'm sure the neutrinos would escape before you could use them. They travel so fast and go through solid matter as if it was just space.

10. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I'm sure the neutrinos would escape before you could use them. They travel so fast and go through solid matter as if it was just space.
They are negative mass, and should bump negative mass, so you need negative mass to steer them. Anyway that's why they add energy to complete the energy knot.

11. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
They are negative mass, and should bump negative mass, so you need negative mass to steer them.
I've got plenty of mass, but lack negative mass sorry.

12. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I've got plenty of mass, but lack negative mass sorry.
Yeah its all backwards for me anyway. I am trying to switch it to what you call mass... I call negative mass. That makes life difficult. In my theory, heavy objects have less mass. They are heavy because they are acting like sponges with the gravity.

13. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Yeah its all backwards for me anyway. I am trying to switch it to what you call mass... I call negative mass. That makes life difficult. In my theory, heavy objects have less mass. They are heavy because they are acting like sponges with the gravity.
It sounds more like an alternative reality to me. It sounds like the beginnings of a novel, where you are describing another place and time.
Could you be living in a time warp or something?

14. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...?newsfeed=true
Air pollution 'will become bigger global killer than dirty water'
OECD report says pollution will become biggest cause of premature death, killing an estimated 3.6 million people a year by 2050

.....

If current policies are allowed to carry on, the world will far exceed the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are safe, the report found. "I call it the surrender scenario – where we would be if governments do nothing more than what they have pledged already?" said Simon Upton, environment director at the OECD. "But it could be even worse than that, we've found."
Air pollution will increase the rate of global warming. The winds on Earth are going to get like those on Venus if we don't watch out.

15. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
It sounds more like an alternative reality to me. It sounds like the beginnings of a novel, where you are describing another place and time.
Could you be living in a time warp or something?
It's the Da Vinci code.

16. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It's the Da Vinci code.
Dan brown made millions out of that yet the story I could tell would be a lot more accurate and controversial.

17. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Dan brown made millions out of that yet the story I could tell would be a lot more accurate and controversial.
But Dan Brown is a good writer.

18. Originally Posted by AlexG
But Dan Brown is a good writer.
I know that is an important difference, his use of words and tense can't be matched. I can't do it, I know it.

The one poster I do always enjoy reading is Aqueous ID. To me he is the most logical thinker/writer I have ever come across. How do you find him/her?

19. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I know that is an imprtant difference, his use of words and tense can't be matched. I can't do it, I know it.

The one poster I do always enjoy reading is Aqueous ID. To me he is the most logical thinker/writer I have ever come across. How do you find him/her?
Well I say, don't ask questions just to blame something on the answer. It's a catch 22 for me to bother replying. I can make a computer model of the things that I have said, so the ideas work. And you can see the ideas in nature, so my ideas are backed up by nature.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•