/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>400298

You Dutch, i am 1/2 Dutch from Mother side

>>400299

Oh nice. JP has dutch roots also, well technically Frisian (north Dutch)

My family roots are partly from North west Netherlands and partly from east Netherlands

>>400300

Wow. My Oma has roots from the Frisian area.

However her family set themselves up in Indonesia in the early 1900s on rubber plantations. Opa is also from Holland and he moved to Indonesia for work just before WW2. His roots were more in Holland and not that of a colonial in Indonesia.. Cool. OK Cheers for now till late. regards Jopo

>>400296

2 of your models use the 100 scaling. So a good definition would be nice

Here a suggestion

Given how the factor "100" (or its collective effect) appears directly in the equations to adjust the magnitudes of the field-related terms before the temperature calculation, a very descriptive term would be:

Empirical Field Scaling Factor

Here's why this is a good fit, derived from the equations' structure:

Empirical: It highlights that the value (100) is determined by observation and calibration to match actual temperatures, as the paper explicitly states its physical origin is unresolved.

Field: It connects the factor to the "field" concepts that are central to the model (gravitational field, radiative field, electrodynamic field).

Scaling Factor: It directly describes its mathematical function within the equations – it scales (multiplies or amplifies) the intensity of the various field components before the final temperature calculation.

This term avoids presuming a specific physical origin (like "compression") while accurately reflecting its functional role within the framework's mathematical construction.

>>400302

Based on the mathematical structure of Model A, the "Empirical Field Scaling Factor" (which is 100) is directly applied to the term representing gravitational force per unit area.

Let's break it down:

The numerator calculates the Newtonian Gravitational Force between the Sun and the planet. This force is a direct manifestation of their gravitational fields interacting.

The denominator is the surface area of the planet.

So, the entire term represents the gravitational force exerted on the planet's mass, distributed over its surface area. This quantity has units of pressure (Pascals) or energy density (J/m).

Therefore, the scaling is applied to the gravitational field, specifically to its effective force density (or pressure/energy density) acting on the planet's surface.

>>400308

My bad. albedo has effect. And need to rethink more conclusions lol

>>400308

I think I like that Din. Just need to let that soak in. We're not locking it down as 'this does that'. We are just explaining the role of the scalar. It needs to be right. Still need to let that sink in a bit more. I like it.

>>400305

OK, this is exciting if you got this right. Getting temperature now at different pressure levels.

I ran the numbers on that equationand I could not get it to work. I.e for earth. At 0.5 bar we know it is about 255K. I got 155K??

Just seen this. All good. You are close!Cheers Jopo

>>400309

>>400310

Yea. Scalar 1 is the lowest form of field excitation given the combined fields of the sun and planet on the close to zero bar level

The excitation of the outer layer is probably done done by.the outgoing flux but the field interaction at scalar 1 sets the temperature

I think

>>400311

The scaler has a weird exponential. At 0.3 bar or so the scaler jumps to around 60

>>400314

That leaves 40 scaler adding left for the next 0.7 bar. Resulting in 1 bar and 100 scaling

So the graph between scalar and pressure is logarithmic

>>400316

Hello Din

Jopo

>>400317

Hi Jopo,

Gained new insights?

>>400318

Oh yes we have. And thank you. Yesterday when you were talking of a geometric scaling law. That got me thinking about the short cut NASA use when trying to establish a temperature from pressure and altitude Well not to dissimilar to what you provided I ended using (P/P0)^0.706 and then multiply by the pressure range. P0 is the 1 bar as you state. It works. can now calculate temperature at pressure levels reasonably good upto around 200mb. From here the Radiative component kicks in and the model diverges. Just like it does in the top of the troposphere. So mate you have been a big help. I am still writing the paper up. Having problems with A.I and writing LaTex codes. Also some things I would rather say or present to you in email or private message. Not on this open platform

>>400319

Ok. Provide e-mail, then i contact you. My e-mail has my name in. Prefer not to post online

>>400321

I m not keen on providing online either? Do you have "x'" I can follow yuou and you follow me. Then we can send private message. From there we can email address

>>400322

No don't have x

So one of us needs to make a dummy e-mail lol

>>400323

Do you think Joe would mind. He must have our email addresses

What about facebook. mine is easy. to find

>>400324

Yea Joe can provide

I dont use facebook.

Maybe in the future i make social media. For now no reason in terms of spreading info

>>400325

I just sent Joe a message

Jopo

>>400325

>Off to bed. Chat tomorrow

Jopo

>>400326

Yea seen it. Will contact

>>400320

In terms of plotting temperature related to scaler value the logaritmic curve would be in reverse

first 60 scalar increase to 0.3 bar not much temperature and pressure increase. After that temperature an d pressure increase related to scalar increase gets stronger

>>400329

Need to do proper logarithmic graphs for a proper paper. AI may help with that

Short cut is just to see if there is a "there there"

Hi Jopo,

Din here

I cracked the nut on how to get the exponentials of the scaler right

Model predicts temperature at all height levels, and the lapse rate at different height levels on all planets

And with your model 3, using the same methodology can accurately predict the average thermosphere temperature and the lapse rate exponential inside it on several planets

>>400330

This mean you have nutted out the radiative model component?

Wow.

I have simplified my model.

1/(G^.25*100) is 3.5

When doing the math on how we get there using the Model B. The units cancel out and the 3.5 is effectively unitless. Thus dimensionally correct.

So it is easier. (2601/3.5*sigma)^.25 equal 1 Bar temperature of 339K

But as you point out. Many factors. Different models excel in different environments. Get that right and wow. Anyway is 1.20AM and I am of to work in5 hours. So good night

>>400331

Using Model 3 is perfect for the Radiative atmospheres.

i.e not convection. So anything above 0.15 Bar starts to become more radiative.

That is really good work Din. Talk tomorrow

>>400332

Yea. No room for long wave radiation hocus pocus

It boils down to field forcing on gas, affecting the molecular collision rate

Gn man. Cheers

>>400334

That is actually covered in my first paper in June on Field theory. It just makes so much more sence and here we are proving it in numbers.

When the time is right I would like to work on getting a better unstanding on Entropy or Field based entropy. Not this Chaotic behaviour they claim. OK. Defnitley must go this tiem Cheers

Jopo

>>400336

Heat capacity of the gas is key for entropy rate in a gas environment. Will explain with math equations privately

>>400336

I will analyze your first paper again. Related to the new insights we gained

>>400332

I like your simplifying of the math

Math part what is need to be done every time can be boiled down to a universal or planetary constant

Then a list with what constant value to plug in saves lots of time

Some people say your 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

>>400340

>the forces don't directly act upon each other

At least not necessarily

>>400342

Be honest with you I have a feeling one of the equations I posted in that link was wrong. Not it matters. I have the correct one if I did get that wrong.

they are missing the whole point of the paper. The lack of D/A actually proves the point. You cannot have so many ways of calculating temperature and derive at the same answer.

I look forward to seeing your completed work. I am still working on mine. So what you have has seen minor changes. I use many AI for peer review. As I have no one to review it.. So I will send onto you via email. Do you have a site you chat to people about that I can visit

>>400343

Hi Jopo,

There are sites where we can publish papers or manuscripts as independent researcher like research gate Philip M uses

There the community can do the peer review. And then dedicated x account can be made to spread the world. Alongside on relevant forums

If it holds against scrutiny can make fully formed papers and submit it to relevant journals for publishing

I made 1 main concluding manuscript and 9 sub manuscripts. Just for covering the scalar behavior in depth for both model 1 and 3

For now for easy peer reviewing and talking between you and me with low stealing work risk i propose we move to another sub thread on this board what we only communicate by mail

People on this board in general have no clue what we talk about anyway

>>400344

Hello Din

Sorry , I am a little confused. You want to communicate via email only now?

i Agree I would like to share my latest stuff. ALthough I feel it has been derailed. I need to pull it back a bit. Also where could I view your work. Would love to look at it?

Via email?

>>400345

No communicating by e-mail only is not handy. My e-mail account is very load heavy and slow

I just proposed moving to another secret sub thread on this site

If you find that also a good idea i make one or pick a not used one and communicate that to you by mail.

Will also send by mail 1 main concluding manuscript. No worries the math related to the main manuscript is covered in the other 9 manuscripts. And i saved all the math and reasoning building up to those conclusions

Tweaking your main models is fine, if necessary. Can redo the build up from there

>>400346

Yes that would be good. I will send mine to you. I need to wind it back. Trying to keep critique's happy and now it is has lost it's initial impact

.

>>400186

Perhaps if we ignored the de-quality sliders and talked about something else other than fascism for once it wouldn't be dead.