Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
JackFlorey   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 639
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Aug 03 2020 10:04pm

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 03 2020 7:26pm
You can SEE the fire dept, you KNOW what they will do if your pants catch fire
You KNOW that some unfortunate day you WILL need them
Only in your imagination. I have owned homes for 25 years. No fires! You must either be really careless or have an active imagination. Why should we all pay just because you are careless and scared?
Its called insurance against a KNOWN RISK.
Yep. And Florida is losing shoreline. Known risk.
It is a “green house gas”. As are many other gasses in the atmosphere,..the question is just how influential is it, and just how much CONTROL over it do you believe we humans actually have ?
Concentration increased from 280ppm to 400ppm due to our burning of fossil fuels. Easy to calculate.
If you believe Al Gore, then we should be dead by now, .
Now, see, that's why no one takes you seriously - because you lie about everything, even when you don't have to. It's a habit of yours.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 03 2020 10:26pm

jonescg wrote:
Aug 03 2020 8:04pm
Anyway, Perth just recorded it's second warmest July on record. The warmest being waaaay back in... 2019 :warn:
Mean temp Aus.JPG
National trend is suggesting something but I can't put my finger on it...
Before you get too alarmed by the impending firey doomsday senario.... you may want to consider the reputation of the Australian BOM when it comes to credibility for reliable data collecting and reporting.
They have a laughable record of failing to maintain their recording stations to their own requirements, moving stations without recording either the event or records of correlationbetween measurements...changing measuring equipment and recording methods, etc
EVERY data point they record is “adjusted” and /or “corrected using some undocumented protocols, but including averaging results between stations 100s of km’s apart.
They are also known to have deleted data records to suit their own agenda ( and tried to hide the original data !)
Most significantly, they have repeatedly (Acorn1, Acorn 2) reviewed historic data ( bact to 1910) and “adjusted” it to show a increasing warming trend from last century.
So yes, the trend is suggesting something.......something they want you to see !
BOM. =. Bureau Of Misinformation ..!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3858
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Aug 03 2020 11:17pm

You must be rubbing yourself raw at the prospect of Craig Kelly (renowned furniture salesman, federal MP for Hume and now forensic interrogator of BOM records) and his merry band investigating the BOM for fudging data.

Personally I look forward to this gargantuan waste of resources and time. As it will do nothing but highlight how impressive and professional the BOM is. And of course, confirm their historical climate data is sound.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 1:16am

No, i dont expect any new Revelations from any official enquiry into the BOM, .
Its a Govmt agency, so anything serious would be played down, and swept under the carpet of bureaucracy to avoid embarrassment. There have already been enough expert investigations into various aspects of the BOM to completely discredit it as a credible reference source.
Not only is their current data inaccurate, they have also managed to corrupt the historic records from 100+ years of work by their predecessors.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 1:31am

JackFlorey wrote:
Aug 03 2020 10:04pm
.... I have owned homes for 25 years. No fires! You must either be really careless or have an active imagination. Why should we all pay just because you are careless and scared?
For the same reason you pay auto insurance... you may not plan to have an accident, but there are plenty of other possibilities from other drivers, falling trees, hail, etc etc.
With fires there are bush fires, lighening strikes, neighbours not so dilligent as you, etc etc.
As i said... you KNOW it can and does happen.
...Concentration increased from 280ppm to 400ppm due to our burning of fossil fuels. ...
No, that just your BELIEF ...we have been there before, and there is no proof of that , just correlation .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3858
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Aug 04 2020 1:51am

I keep promising not to spend any more time on this thread... but anwyay.

If the thermometer hadn't been invented, let alone left to the whims of humans and record keeping, what clues would you draw on to see that the temperature has gone up or not?

Perhaps some really obvious physical change, like solid water to liquid water? That only happens when heat is added and the temperature rises. If there had been no warming of consequence in the last 100 years, we would have seen glaciers increasing in size. But alas, they're retreating.

Jesse Soric   1 µW

1 µW
Posts: 2
Joined: Jul 31 2015 7:23pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Jesse Soric » Aug 04 2020 7:02am

BOM is not the only source of historical climate data. There are farmers/graziers that have kept records for generations. Their thermometers and rain gauges might not be state of the art but they do stay in the one spot. So unless BOM agents have been able to infiltrate these farmers households, put a line through the numbers and write a new one, then perhaps these records could be of some use in proving a point one way or the other. These records can be accessed through local councils, museums etc.. I would think hand written records would be hard for the agents of BOM to counterfeit.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 7:32am

jonescg wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:51am
........ If there had been no warming of consequence in the last 100 years, we would have seen glaciers increasing in size. But alas, they're retreating.
Obviously, .....since the planet is still emerging from as ice age
The debate is about the rate of warming .....and the primary cause.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3858
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Aug 04 2020 8:05am

So you agree the planets surface is warming then?
Good. Because that's consistent with the BOMs records.

...
That's my point.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 8:12am

Jesse Soric wrote:
Aug 04 2020 7:02am
BOM is not the only source of historical climate data. There are farmers/graziers that have kept records for generations. Their thermometers and rain gauges might not be state of the art but they do stay in the one spot. So unless BOM agents have been able to infiltrate these farmers households, put a line through the numbers and write a new one, then perhaps these records could be of some use in proving a point one way or the other. These records can be accessed through local councils, museums etc.. I would think hand written records would be hard for the agents of BOM to counterfeit.
Yes there are many independent historical records dating back to the 1800’s. That differ to the BOMs “official” records. Many have already been sourced and compared to BOM records
Even the predecessors of todays BOM , local postmasters etc,..kept handwritten records.. but the current organisation both refuse to accept anything prior to 1910 ..(conveniently missing the record breaking 1900 heatwave ), refute the accuracy of most “non official” records, and alter others ..(the “Acorn” revisions)
Other Independent sourcess, newspapers etc, also record temperatures that differ to the “official” BOM data.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 8:27am

jonescg wrote:
Aug 04 2020 8:05am
So you agree the planets surface is warming then?
Good. Because that's consistent with the BOMs records.
That's my point.
No, it is not consistent with theBOM records.... they are heavily manipulated.
As i said,..
.... The point is the rate of warming and the cause/explanation for it.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

JackFlorey   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 639
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Aug 04 2020 1:17pm

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:31am
For the same reason you pay auto insurance... you may not plan to have an accident, but there are plenty of other possibilities from other drivers, falling trees, hail, etc etc.
Excellent point! So you pay money now to protect yourself from things that are likely to happen in the future! A great argument for buying insurance - and reducing CO2 emissions.
As i said... you KNOW it can and does happen.
Just as we KNOW CO2 causes warming, and that said warming can and does happen. Another good argument.

JackFlorey   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 639
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Aug 04 2020 1:19pm

jonescg wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:51am
If the thermometer hadn't been invented, let alone left to the whims of humans and record keeping, what clues would you draw on to see that the temperature has gone up or not?
Trump took that approach to COVID-19 testing - if you don't test, then the disease doesn't spread, because the numbers don't go any higher.

I guess we could apply the same concept to climate change. If we pass laws to stop measuring temperature, global warming will end.

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9550
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Aug 04 2020 2:45pm

The Great Outdoors Act. Now THERE is your insurance against what you know will happen. With all the people traveling through them, the National Parks just won't survive on their own.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st ... lic-lands/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 8:25pm

JackFlorey wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:17pm
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:31am
For the same reason you pay auto insurance... you may not plan to have an accident, but there are plenty of other possibilities from other drivers, falling trees, hail, etc etc.
Excellent point! So you pay money now to protect yourself from things that are likely to happen in the future! A great argument for buying insurance -

Insurance is based on risk assessment,...cause analysis of known events, etc ..IE FACT based.
.....and reducing CO2 emissions.
Presumeably you mean Anthropogenic CO2 ?.... Which have NO CAUSAL linkage to warming ..OR even to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels .!
JackFlorey wrote:
Aug 04 2020 1:17pm
Just as we KNOW CO2 causes warming, and that said warming can and does happen.
As i said,..knowing something does happen , and knowing what causes it, are two different things.
Nobody KNOWS that CO2 causes warming as being suggested, many appear to BELIEVE it is so, but... it is only a THEORY,..not a proven fact.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3858
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Aug 04 2020 8:41pm

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 04 2020 8:27am
jonescg wrote:
Aug 04 2020 8:05am
So you agree the planets surface is warming then?
Good. Because that's consistent with the BOMs records.
That's my point.
No, it is not consistent with theBOM records.... they are heavily manipulated.
As i said,..
.... The point is the rate of warming and the cause/explanation for it.
I post BOM data that shows a deviation upwards of the Australian mean temperature, indicating the temperature is increasing.
You agree the earth is getting warmer (but dispute the cause of warmth).
Why then do you take issue with the data when it in fact supports your own observations?

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14294
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by neptronix » Aug 04 2020 8:58pm

Sorry to throw things off track, and i haven't been following this thread for a while because it's been a lot of arguing for years. But ES has some great minds on it still and i have to ask this.

I've been watching CO2 levels, ice melt, and energy use for something like a decade.

Worldwide petroleum, nat gas, coal etc seems to be down for quite some months. CO2 per the mauna loa observatory is edging down too, for the first time in forever and a half, but we're seeing ice caps at the north pole melt at a rate they have never melted at.

My only guess would be global methane emissions from all the destroyed produce and shuttered petroleum/nat gas fields, but NOAA stopped tracking data in march so we don't know much about how they're faring. Up until march the numbers seem to be rising at the normal rate.

Any theories on why this doesn't match up with ice melt?
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive." - Dalai Lama

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 9:13pm

jonescg wrote:
Aug 04 2020 8:41pm
You agree the earth is getting warmer (but dispute the cause of warmth).
Why then do you take issue with the data when it in fact supports your own observations?
Because the BOM data has been falseified to exaggerate the trend..suppress data that doesnt support a correlation with other factors.
It is like a cartoon graph designed to grab attention, and generate alarm and a response.
I prefer to deal with real data, not “processed” information.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1388
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 04 2020 9:18pm

"Our findings show that the annual average CO2 concentrations will still increase through this year, even though emissions are reducing. Across the whole year, we estimate CO2 levels will rise by 2.48 parts per million (ppm). This increase is 0.32ppm smaller than if there had been no lockdown – equivalent to 11% of the expected rise.

This means that, although global emissions are smaller, they are still continuing – just at a slower rate. Additional CO2 is still accumulating in the atmosphere."
.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wh ... pheric-co2
.
Image
.
Image
.
"Reduced emissions of other gases and particles may, however, have other effects – for example, by decreasing the pollution from aerosol particles. The potential effect of these on climate is currently being researched, but may induce a temporary small warming."
.
"Reducing emissions slightly does not immediately reduce concentrations, it only slows the rate of increase. For CO2 to stop building up in the atmosphere, human-caused emissions would need to drop by around 50% in the short term"
.

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14294
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by neptronix » Aug 04 2020 9:28pm

First graph is a bit older but i'll take it. Last one is a projection. Got better data?

One interesting thing of note is that we had a global huge dip in all sorts of energy usage.. one would think this would lead to reduced co2 output and less warming.. but it just didn't..

Here's one from the EIA. An old projection but does show part of a pretty huge dip in energy use.

Image
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive." - Dalai Lama

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 04 2020 9:58pm

Why bother with “estimations” and “Projections” ?...when the actual NOAA data is available !
To date..
The overall range ..oct to-may monthly average (8.55ppm), is greater than last year , or the year before..
The year on year increase , June to June,..is exactly the average for the last 10 years (2.43 ppm)
Image
And the actual monthy data averages..
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1388
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 05 2020 5:36am

neptronix wrote:
Aug 04 2020 9:28pm
First graph is a bit older but i'll take it. Last one is a projection. Got better data?

One interesting thing of note is that we had a global huge dip in all sorts of energy usage.. one would think this would lead to reduced co2 output and less warming.. but it just didn't..

Here's one from the EIA. An old projection but does show part of a pretty huge dip in energy use.

Image
We still added more CO2 than was taken up by the sinks even with the shut down. Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than last year. And than any other year for the last 2 million years. It is just 11% "less higher" than it would have been. We would have to cut CO2 emissions by 50% to make atmospheric levels start to go down. Also, aerosol particulates which block solar energy from reaching the Earth's surface were reduced during the China shut down. Particularly across the Northern latitudes.
.
Atmospheric Methane also continues to rise:
.
Image
.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1388
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 05 2020 5:57am

NASA has a good site.
.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 11069
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 05 2020 9:42am

This is pathetic !
It hard to believe they have the balls to print this rubbish
Forecasting concentrations
The Met Office routinely forecasts how concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will change over the coming year. This is based on human emissions from fossil fuel burning, land use and cement production along with the predicted changes in natural carbon sinks and sources due to recent and predicted climatic conditions.

"Our findings show that the annual average CO2 concentrations will still increase through this year, even though emissions are reducing. Across the whole year, we estimate CO2 levels will rise by 2.48 parts per million (ppm). This increase is 0.32ppm smaller than if there had been no lockdown – equivalent to 11% of the expected rise.
Lets see..
They ASSUME a linkage between atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuel usage..
Then they create a THEORETICAL model to suit..
Then they ESTIMATE the reduction in fossil fuel usage this year
And finally use that ESTIMATE in the THEORETICAL model to PRECISELY PREDICT 0.32ppm less CO2 this year ..than it would have been if they had not assumed a reduction in Fossil fuel usage!....incredible !
An impressive display of self belief !
How could anyone take that seriously ?

FURTHER..
This part is another leap of faith also..
The measurements at Mauna Loa over recent weeks show that CO2 has continued to rise. The average for April has already set a new record high monthly value of 416.2 ppm, which is likely to be the highest concentration for at least two million years.
Monthly CO2 at Mauna Loa will reach its annual maximum of 417.1ppm (±0.6) in May, and then decline for the next four months as northern land ecosystems green up and draw CO2 out of the atmosphere. Following an annual minimum in September, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa will again rise as northern hemisphere ecosystems release carbon back to the atmosphere in autumn and winter.

The new prediction for the average CO2 in May is 0.4ppm lower than would be expected without the Covid-19 emissions reductions.
In summary,.. they suggest the increase between April and May should have been 1.3 ppm.
Which is hard to understand as any increase above 1.0 ppm has only been seen twice in the past 10 years,..and the actual increase of 0.86 ppm was still above the 10 year average for April.May of 0.81 ppm .! :roll:
So another example of misleading information !
And considering they KNOW the seasonal variation can be anything from 7 to 9 ppm (or more !),. It is amusing to see them suggesting a 0.32 ppm change due only to Fossil fuel reduction !
Remember.. the only MEASURED data available here , is the CO2 ppm readings.
Everything else , Emissions , sink rates, Fossil fuel use, etc etc ..are all ESTIMATES. Some with huge potential errors.
Last edited by Hillhater on Aug 05 2020 11:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

JackFlorey   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 639
Joined: Feb 19 2020 7:22pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by JackFlorey » Aug 05 2020 11:01pm

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 04 2020 8:25pm
Insurance is based on risk assessment,...cause analysis of known events, etc ..IE FACT based.
Another excellent point! Insurance companies take the fact based approach.

==========
Holding the Bill
Insurance companies and lenders are responding to climate change — by shifting risk to taxpayers.

By Naveena Sadasivam on Mar 4, 2020

In a pair of little-noticed letters sent earlier this year, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and five other Democratic senators asked two giant organizations crucial to keeping the country’s housing market running how they were preparing for the destructive power of climate change. “If we are underprepared, climate change could have particularly devastating impacts on the individuals and communities who can least afford it,” the letter warned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-supported companies that back roughly half of the country’s $10 trillion mortgage market. . . .Earlier this year, the head of the world’s largest investment firm, BlackRock, said that climate change is causing a “fundamental reshaping of finance.”
==========
Climate change = insurance risk

The escalating frequency and severity of extreme weather-related events—from wildfires in the US, to record heat waves in Europe, to floods in Japan—have shone a brighter regulatory spotlight on insurance risk and climate change. One federal regulator in the US went so far as to suggest that the potential damage from climate change could end up being as severe as the fallout from the mortgage crisis triggering the 2008 financial crisis.

In fact, the Insurance Regulator State of Climate Risks Survey, conducted by the Deloitte Center for Financial Services, found:

A majority of US state insurance regulators expect all types of insurance companies’ climate change risks to increase over the medium to long term—including physical risks, liability risks, and transition risks.
More than half of the regulators surveyed also indicated that climate change was likely to have a high impact or an extremely high impact on coverage availability and underwriting assumptions.
=========

So those fact based insurance companies are now taking the facts of climate change into account. Glad you agree.
Presumeably you mean Anthropogenic CO2 ?.... Which have NO CAUSAL linkage to warming ..OR even to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels .!
CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere - fact.
It is from our burning of fuels - fact.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact.
The climate is warming per predictions as CO2 rises - fact.

Awful lot of facts you have to deny to be a climate change denier.
Nobody KNOWS that CO2 causes warming as being suggested, many appear to BELIEVE it is so, but... it is only a THEORY,..not a proven fact.
Oh, it's a proven fact. You can do the experiment to prove it in a high school science lab.

Post Reply