From: "Little@man.Ball" <suck@ra.mentos>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Why? CO2 Doesn't Cause Warming
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:47:28 -0600
Organization: \@multiple personality phil hendry mind fuck@/
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:55:21 -0700
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-25 13:01, Little@man.Ball wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:41:41 -0700
> > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> > =20
> >> The guy who wrote that knows nothing:
> >>
> >> 'Energy does not migrate on and on. Kinetic energy (motion) is
> >> continuously destroyed in a gravitational field.'
> >>
> >> That statement is completely false.
> >>
> >> Energy is NEVER destroyed. =20
> >=20
> > Yes, in some cases. =20
>=20
> Nope. In no cases as all.
>=20
> > We can convert kinetic energy to potential anergy
> > thus =E2=80=9Cdestroying=E2=80=9D all of the kinetic energy. =20
>=20
> So NOT destroying.
>=20
> > One simple example is to
> > throw a ball on the moon straight up. Lacking air resistance, when
> > the ball reach its peak height it has zero kinetic energy. =20
>=20
> But it has additional potential energy in precisely the same amount.
Nope.
Not in space.
It is nulled.
>=20
> > A more difficult
> > experiment is on earth o send a moving object uphill with zero
> > friction and set the slope such that it becomes level at the top
> > and the object reaches a complete halt. =20
>=20
> And it makes not difference.
>=20
> The energy in either scenario is not destroyed, but rather converted=20
> from one form to another.
>=20
Or nulled =3D destroyed.
cope.