Limot
@limot.bsky.social
Mukesh Prasad writing as Limot. Graduate of 55 NDA, India. Graduate degrees from Yale University USA. I have taken 30 courses in Computer Science which is not a science despite the name and 20 in Physics which is a science despite no "science" in the name.
I have moved mountains. Please be socially responsible and move your hand to get your credit card out of your wallet. And SUBSCRIBE!
There is a revolution in there, but you have to support it.
limotsnewsletter.com
There is a revolution in there, but you have to support it.
limotsnewsletter.com
Limot's Newsletter
limotsnewsletter.com
January 2, 2026 at 6:11 PM
I have moved mountains. Please be socially responsible and move your hand to get your credit card out of your wallet. And SUBSCRIBE!
There is a revolution in there, but you have to support it.
limotsnewsletter.com
There is a revolution in there, but you have to support it.
limotsnewsletter.com
Why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics keep coming up in discussions of manmade climate models?
Well, they have an "infinite energy in CO2 bands" assumption. In reality, Sun sends out a lot of energy, but no, it is not infinite. It is finite.
Their "infinite energy" assumption is not valid.
Well, they have an "infinite energy in CO2 bands" assumption. In reality, Sun sends out a lot of energy, but no, it is not infinite. It is finite.
Their "infinite energy" assumption is not valid.
January 1, 2026 at 2:05 AM
Why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics keep coming up in discussions of manmade climate models?
Well, they have an "infinite energy in CO2 bands" assumption. In reality, Sun sends out a lot of energy, but no, it is not infinite. It is finite.
Their "infinite energy" assumption is not valid.
Well, they have an "infinite energy in CO2 bands" assumption. In reality, Sun sends out a lot of energy, but no, it is not infinite. It is finite.
Their "infinite energy" assumption is not valid.
For the Record
==
Polar Vortex scientists had no understanding of the physics of the Polar Vortex and were using some roundabout math without understanding it.
I explained it - the Polar Vortex is NOT spinning, that's an optical illusion. It is trying to stand still, the Earth is spinning under it.
==
Polar Vortex scientists had no understanding of the physics of the Polar Vortex and were using some roundabout math without understanding it.
I explained it - the Polar Vortex is NOT spinning, that's an optical illusion. It is trying to stand still, the Earth is spinning under it.
December 28, 2025 at 4:56 PM
For the Record
==
Polar Vortex scientists had no understanding of the physics of the Polar Vortex and were using some roundabout math without understanding it.
I explained it - the Polar Vortex is NOT spinning, that's an optical illusion. It is trying to stand still, the Earth is spinning under it.
==
Polar Vortex scientists had no understanding of the physics of the Polar Vortex and were using some roundabout math without understanding it.
I explained it - the Polar Vortex is NOT spinning, that's an optical illusion. It is trying to stand still, the Earth is spinning under it.
There is interesting climate science happening in front of our eyes. Polar vortexes are expanding. That is causing interesting weather patterns.
This cannot be scientifically studied by climate scientists.
Dogma has already established itself in Polar Vortexes, and the dogma may not be challenged.
This cannot be scientifically studied by climate scientists.
Dogma has already established itself in Polar Vortexes, and the dogma may not be challenged.
December 25, 2025 at 8:16 PM
There is interesting climate science happening in front of our eyes. Polar vortexes are expanding. That is causing interesting weather patterns.
This cannot be scientifically studied by climate scientists.
Dogma has already established itself in Polar Vortexes, and the dogma may not be challenged.
This cannot be scientifically studied by climate scientists.
Dogma has already established itself in Polar Vortexes, and the dogma may not be challenged.
Look, I get angry with the vaxx-damaged from time to time, because there was no need for this, I was out spreading the math out there, getting censored as "misinformation". Hello? How is doing the math on YOUR numbers "misinformation?"
Anyway, that happened. Now, a lot of people have immune system
Anyway, that happened. Now, a lot of people have immune system
December 25, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Look, I get angry with the vaxx-damaged from time to time, because there was no need for this, I was out spreading the math out there, getting censored as "misinformation". Hello? How is doing the math on YOUR numbers "misinformation?"
Anyway, that happened. Now, a lot of people have immune system
Anyway, that happened. Now, a lot of people have immune system
I don't know if this is same in modern physics, but in my physics, when discussing radiation (such as light) the words wavelength and frequency are almost interchangeably used in discussions. They are not exactly the same, but a given wave is uniquely identified by its wavelength OR its frequency.
December 24, 2025 at 1:41 AM
I don't know if this is same in modern physics, but in my physics, when discussing radiation (such as light) the words wavelength and frequency are almost interchangeably used in discussions. They are not exactly the same, but a given wave is uniquely identified by its wavelength OR its frequency.
So I beat back the climatards (NASA-led scientists who claim climate revolves around mankind) into a really interesting corner.
Climatards are saying that Carbon Dioxide wavelengths coming out of the ground, do NOT prove presence of Carbon Dioxide molecules. This is really bizarre, wavelength
Climatards are saying that Carbon Dioxide wavelengths coming out of the ground, do NOT prove presence of Carbon Dioxide molecules. This is really bizarre, wavelength
December 22, 2025 at 11:01 PM
So I beat back the climatards (NASA-led scientists who claim climate revolves around mankind) into a really interesting corner.
Climatards are saying that Carbon Dioxide wavelengths coming out of the ground, do NOT prove presence of Carbon Dioxide molecules. This is really bizarre, wavelength
Climatards are saying that Carbon Dioxide wavelengths coming out of the ground, do NOT prove presence of Carbon Dioxide molecules. This is really bizarre, wavelength
It should be kept in mind that CO2 controversy has a real impact on other issues.
SO2, CO (without the 2) and in particular soot are known pollutants. This controversy on CO2 has diverted resources away from the other, undisputed, pollutants.
SO2, CO (without the 2) and in particular soot are known pollutants. This controversy on CO2 has diverted resources away from the other, undisputed, pollutants.
December 20, 2025 at 3:34 AM
It should be kept in mind that CO2 controversy has a real impact on other issues.
SO2, CO (without the 2) and in particular soot are known pollutants. This controversy on CO2 has diverted resources away from the other, undisputed, pollutants.
SO2, CO (without the 2) and in particular soot are known pollutants. This controversy on CO2 has diverted resources away from the other, undisputed, pollutants.
An announcement: An email account that I used for alerting experts on the Thermodynamics Blackbody issue, was taken away or hacked.
December 19, 2025 at 2:13 AM
An announcement: An email account that I used for alerting experts on the Thermodynamics Blackbody issue, was taken away or hacked.
The climate change layoffs are on their own heads. I have been arguing for a while that this situation needs to be addressed IN THE LIGHT. They are politically weak. If they could have admitted to my existence there are suggestions I have outlined how to repurpose the trapped once idealistic talent.
December 18, 2025 at 2:17 AM
The climate change layoffs are on their own heads. I have been arguing for a while that this situation needs to be addressed IN THE LIGHT. They are politically weak. If they could have admitted to my existence there are suggestions I have outlined how to repurpose the trapped once idealistic talent.
Discussing Physics with a Bot
The bot's learning speed was impressive. Originally, it seemed to be programmed just to invite me to and discuss 2nd law of thermodynamics. It didn't know 2nd law of thermodynamics, from thermodynamics as a field of physics. But it learned VERY fast.
The bot's learning speed was impressive. Originally, it seemed to be programmed just to invite me to and discuss 2nd law of thermodynamics. It didn't know 2nd law of thermodynamics, from thermodynamics as a field of physics. But it learned VERY fast.
December 17, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Discussing Physics with a Bot
The bot's learning speed was impressive. Originally, it seemed to be programmed just to invite me to and discuss 2nd law of thermodynamics. It didn't know 2nd law of thermodynamics, from thermodynamics as a field of physics. But it learned VERY fast.
The bot's learning speed was impressive. Originally, it seemed to be programmed just to invite me to and discuss 2nd law of thermodynamics. It didn't know 2nd law of thermodynamics, from thermodynamics as a field of physics. But it learned VERY fast.
This happened.
I learned Thermodynamics in India, old textbooks, teachers with old knowledge. I had learned of this Blackbody thing. This was for calibration, and it was the hypothetical blackest possible color. This was basis for much of the field, it turned out.
Turns out, the definition of
I learned Thermodynamics in India, old textbooks, teachers with old knowledge. I had learned of this Blackbody thing. This was for calibration, and it was the hypothetical blackest possible color. This was basis for much of the field, it turned out.
Turns out, the definition of
December 17, 2025 at 1:53 AM
This happened.
I learned Thermodynamics in India, old textbooks, teachers with old knowledge. I had learned of this Blackbody thing. This was for calibration, and it was the hypothetical blackest possible color. This was basis for much of the field, it turned out.
Turns out, the definition of
I learned Thermodynamics in India, old textbooks, teachers with old knowledge. I had learned of this Blackbody thing. This was for calibration, and it was the hypothetical blackest possible color. This was basis for much of the field, it turned out.
Turns out, the definition of
Reposted by Limot
Hmmm... Does this qualify as "Trump cures cancer"?
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
December 16, 2025 at 2:47 AM
Hmmm... Does this qualify as "Trump cures cancer"?
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
The Climate Change sellout is so strong, that on X I saw physicists arguing that fundamental physics needs to be discarded. I didn't get into the details, but the big picture is (1) Climate Scientists are idiots in physics (2) Some doubters/deniers exist but none of them is exactly a physics genius
December 16, 2025 at 11:13 PM
The Climate Change sellout is so strong, that on X I saw physicists arguing that fundamental physics needs to be discarded. I didn't get into the details, but the big picture is (1) Climate Scientists are idiots in physics (2) Some doubters/deniers exist but none of them is exactly a physics genius
It seems Climate Scientists are refusing to acknowledge that CO2 fixed in the ground would emit radiation in CO2 wavelengths. If radiation is coming out in CO2 wavelengths, they claim that's not evidence of CO2 presence. Because CO2 fixed in the ground can't radiate.
Can't make this stuff up. 😂
Can't make this stuff up. 😂
December 16, 2025 at 6:00 PM
It seems Climate Scientists are refusing to acknowledge that CO2 fixed in the ground would emit radiation in CO2 wavelengths. If radiation is coming out in CO2 wavelengths, they claim that's not evidence of CO2 presence. Because CO2 fixed in the ground can't radiate.
Can't make this stuff up. 😂
Can't make this stuff up. 😂
Hmmm... Does this qualify as "Trump cures cancer"?
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
December 16, 2025 at 2:47 AM
Hmmm... Does this qualify as "Trump cures cancer"?
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
There is some fenbendazole, ivermectin protocol that has the approval of RFK Jr. How good is it?
On my X feed, some people remain skeptical, some claim it is miraculous.
I saw one medical study that admits the cure is almost as good as theirs.
Well, I am in a chat with a bot, after deciding not to do that anymore.
This wasn't intentional though. The Bot has a human name "Owen Patrick" and a profile picture to go with it.
On X I might have interacted with bots too. And also as customer service. I guess can't entirely avoid bot chats now.
This wasn't intentional though. The Bot has a human name "Owen Patrick" and a profile picture to go with it.
On X I might have interacted with bots too. And also as customer service. I guess can't entirely avoid bot chats now.
December 16, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Well, I am in a chat with a bot, after deciding not to do that anymore.
This wasn't intentional though. The Bot has a human name "Owen Patrick" and a profile picture to go with it.
On X I might have interacted with bots too. And also as customer service. I guess can't entirely avoid bot chats now.
This wasn't intentional though. The Bot has a human name "Owen Patrick" and a profile picture to go with it.
On X I might have interacted with bots too. And also as customer service. I guess can't entirely avoid bot chats now.
I am not saying NASA are not great engineers. Give them good science, and they can make stuff.
They don't have the intellectual rigor to do science though.
Science is a process of learning, which involves accepting that you can make mistakes. It was proved on O-rings NASA doesn't have honesty.
They don't have the intellectual rigor to do science though.
Science is a process of learning, which involves accepting that you can make mistakes. It was proved on O-rings NASA doesn't have honesty.
December 15, 2025 at 10:27 PM
I am not saying NASA are not great engineers. Give them good science, and they can make stuff.
They don't have the intellectual rigor to do science though.
Science is a process of learning, which involves accepting that you can make mistakes. It was proved on O-rings NASA doesn't have honesty.
They don't have the intellectual rigor to do science though.
Science is a process of learning, which involves accepting that you can make mistakes. It was proved on O-rings NASA doesn't have honesty.
Reposted by Limot
You did not.
CO2 captures its own wavelengths. Like everything else.
There is a finite, very small, amount of energy available in CO2 wavelengths from the crust. NASA are idiots who started with SciFi and urban legend mysticism about CO2 being special. It's not. CO2 obeys laws of physics.
CO2 captures its own wavelengths. Like everything else.
There is a finite, very small, amount of energy available in CO2 wavelengths from the crust. NASA are idiots who started with SciFi and urban legend mysticism about CO2 being special. It's not. CO2 obeys laws of physics.
December 15, 2025 at 5:44 PM
You did not.
CO2 captures its own wavelengths. Like everything else.
There is a finite, very small, amount of energy available in CO2 wavelengths from the crust. NASA are idiots who started with SciFi and urban legend mysticism about CO2 being special. It's not. CO2 obeys laws of physics.
CO2 captures its own wavelengths. Like everything else.
There is a finite, very small, amount of energy available in CO2 wavelengths from the crust. NASA are idiots who started with SciFi and urban legend mysticism about CO2 being special. It's not. CO2 obeys laws of physics.
So, my contrarian views are not because I can't understand English. I read the same articles, same information, that most people do. I scored 800/800 when taking GRE in 2005. That was the maximum possible score at the time. Which means I was in the top group in terms of understanding English.
December 15, 2025 at 1:59 AM
So, my contrarian views are not because I can't understand English. I read the same articles, same information, that most people do. I scored 800/800 when taking GRE in 2005. That was the maximum possible score at the time. Which means I was in the top group in terms of understanding English.
Manmade Climate Change theory is based on ONE Equation. There is a lot of stuff on top, but the fundamental energy balance comes from ONE equation.
NASA got that ONE equation wrong and have been trying to cover up their idiocy ever since and have become frauds now than scientists.
NASA got that ONE equation wrong and have been trying to cover up their idiocy ever since and have become frauds now than scientists.
Sorry, you just don't know enough.
The computer simulation is fundamentally based on ONE equation. An equation called Stefan Boltzmann. The simulation uses the wrong Stefan Boltzmann equation, without the 'e' (which 'e' we have been discussing in other branches of this discussion.)
The computer simulation is fundamentally based on ONE equation. An equation called Stefan Boltzmann. The simulation uses the wrong Stefan Boltzmann equation, without the 'e' (which 'e' we have been discussing in other branches of this discussion.)
December 14, 2025 at 11:51 PM
Manmade Climate Change theory is based on ONE Equation. There is a lot of stuff on top, but the fundamental energy balance comes from ONE equation.
NASA got that ONE equation wrong and have been trying to cover up their idiocy ever since and have become frauds now than scientists.
NASA got that ONE equation wrong and have been trying to cover up their idiocy ever since and have become frauds now than scientists.
It seems I am the first one to realize that the energy in Carbon Dioxide bands comes from CO2 molecules trapped directly or structurally in the ground. Manoranjan Sinha of IIT Kharagpur pointed that this phenomenon is called "fixing" of the molecules, and the fixed and free molecules have a balance.
December 14, 2025 at 2:53 AM
It seems I am the first one to realize that the energy in Carbon Dioxide bands comes from CO2 molecules trapped directly or structurally in the ground. Manoranjan Sinha of IIT Kharagpur pointed that this phenomenon is called "fixing" of the molecules, and the fixed and free molecules have a balance.
Fundamental Argument in my Rebuttal of Manmade Climate Change
===
I am saying that the model was built by people of NASA (specifically GISS) who had not taken a course in Thermodynamics, nor had ever cracked open a textbook. This becomes obvious over time reading their work.
===
I am saying that the model was built by people of NASA (specifically GISS) who had not taken a course in Thermodynamics, nor had ever cracked open a textbook. This becomes obvious over time reading their work.
December 13, 2025 at 6:33 PM
Fundamental Argument in my Rebuttal of Manmade Climate Change
===
I am saying that the model was built by people of NASA (specifically GISS) who had not taken a course in Thermodynamics, nor had ever cracked open a textbook. This becomes obvious over time reading their work.
===
I am saying that the model was built by people of NASA (specifically GISS) who had not taken a course in Thermodynamics, nor had ever cracked open a textbook. This becomes obvious over time reading their work.
So my theology, my worldview, can be summed up as:
===
There are indeed Heaven and Hell, but it's just that there is no God who created and/or controls it all.
It is uncontrolled, wild, existence beyond life. It's just there, it happened, it evolved, nobody created it.
Heavan and Hell Evolved.
===
===
There are indeed Heaven and Hell, but it's just that there is no God who created and/or controls it all.
It is uncontrolled, wild, existence beyond life. It's just there, it happened, it evolved, nobody created it.
Heavan and Hell Evolved.
===
December 13, 2025 at 3:06 AM
So my theology, my worldview, can be summed up as:
===
There are indeed Heaven and Hell, but it's just that there is no God who created and/or controls it all.
It is uncontrolled, wild, existence beyond life. It's just there, it happened, it evolved, nobody created it.
Heavan and Hell Evolved.
===
===
There are indeed Heaven and Hell, but it's just that there is no God who created and/or controls it all.
It is uncontrolled, wild, existence beyond life. It's just there, it happened, it evolved, nobody created it.
Heavan and Hell Evolved.
===