Petty on DLR 3: Incorrect Science Exposed

Here is the response by Prof Petty on the previous post Petty on DLR 2 with my question

• Who proved that (SB-invented) is a consequence of (SB-original)?

Prof Petty writes:

• First, tell me who told you could apply Newton's 2nd law of motion to your car? Newton didn't know about cars. And cars carry passengers -- - who told you can apply F=ma to a loose collection of several bodies simultaneously? What kind of free invention is it to use a physical law on a system it wasn't derived for?
• And how about the law of conservation of energy? Are you sure energy conservation applies to EVERY system, including those it was never empirically tested on? Give me an original source that proves that energy is conserved in the orbit of a satellite. I can't personally build and launch a satellite, so I don't believe satellites exist.
• Yes, let's see how far your science gets without the ability to actually APPLY the universal laws that have been established. Your science is a sterile one of naked laws lacking in any legitimate application to any situation other than the specific ones envisaged by their namesakes. Only falling apples experience gravity. Only trains can be used to observed relativity.
• Thanks for confirming what I had suspected but refused to completely accept until now -- that your concept of physics is so far removed from mine that further dialogue is hopeless.
• I'm seriously sorry for the time I've wasted on the lot of you.
• Any more messages from anyone in this list get filtered.

What to say? Well, Prof Petty shows a common trait of climate scientists, to get upset and scream instead of discussing science.

Prof Petty illustrates how important it is to understand the proof of a mathematical theorem, to be able to correctly apply the theorem. If the proof is not understood, then it there is a high risk that the theorem will be applied in a way that is not allowed by the proof.

The SB law here named (SB-invented) used in climate science is supposed to be the result of applying an original SB law named (SB-original) twice. But the proof of (SB-original) does not allow a blind application twice. The proof only covers applying the law once to a specific situation. If double application was allowed, then it would be able to modify the proof of (SB-original) into a direct proof of (SB-invented). But this proof is missing in the literature.

I have given a new proof of (SB-original) (in the Skydragon book, see also the upcoming book Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation) which can be extended to a proof of a SB law of the form:

• R = sigma (T^4 - T_b^4)

but not to a proof of (SB-invented). In this form there is no difference of gross flows, only net flow. This is highly important when considering perturbations in connection to assessment of climate sensitivity.

It would be good for the discussion if Prof Petty was willing to read my proof and reflect about

the potential danger of blindly applying a physical law without proper understanding of the conditions for the validity of the law, without understanding the rationale of its justification.

Prof Petty shows his lack of understanding fundamentals of science by exclaiming:

• What kind of free invention is it to use a physical law on a system it wasn't derived for?

This is precisely what I am talking about: You are not as a scientist allowed to apply a law to a situation for which it is not intended/derived for. If you do that, you may cause great damage and you may be responsible.

If a bridge engineer applies a formula to a case for which it is not intended and the bridge falls down, then the engineer may face a legal process. If a scientist applies a law to a case for which it is not intended (not covered by its proof) and the result is false global warming alarm,

then the scientist may face a legal process. To send a false alarm about a fire to the fire station by interpreting the setting Sun as a great fire, will not be appreciated.

In any case the discussion with Prof Petty has been illuminating and I thank him for that.